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.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
It seems to me that the combi weapon part on the bolter is meant to enhance the bolter, not be a secondary weapon.

Think of it as a bayonet or a Digital Weapon.

Is it stupid? Sure. But it's Collector friendly.

As long as they refuse to include all the necessary parts in a kit/sell an upgrade kit that has it, this is a sacrifice I think that is better overall for the game, despite making things a bit blander.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
It seems to me that the combi weapon part on the bolter is meant to enhance the bolter, not be a secondary weapon.

Think of it as a bayonet or a Digital Weapon.

Is it stupid? Sure. But it's Collector friendly.

But that's not what it is. It's literally a different weapon, and not the kind where it's the same niche.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
It seems to me that the combi weapon part on the bolter is meant to enhance the bolter, not be a secondary weapon.

Think of it as a bayonet or a Digital Weapon.

Is it stupid? Sure. But it's Collector friendly.

As long as they refuse to include all the necessary parts in a kit/sell an upgrade kit that has it, this is a sacrifice I think that is better overall for the game, despite making things a bit blander.

OR we can demand GW make bitz sprues or better design kits to begin with.

It's absolute insanity what I'm seeing here. It's like none of you have played an edition before 8th.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
It's absolute insanity what I'm seeing here. It's like none of you have played an edition before 8th.

Everything, but Rogue Trader.

Why is it shocking? Part of why GW might be doing is sunsetting kits with these kinds of weapons. Eventually they'll either legends them or make a new kit where the options aren't as expansive.

EDIT: Well, I guess that doesn't make sense for some of the non-marine stuff.

Yeah the horse is long bolted if you're bothered by the sterilisation of the game.

Glad they are changing comvi wepons now I don't need to worry about what is best and how do I get more plasma parts.

Also it was kinda rediculas that they had the same power as full size plasma guns and such on account of how small they where.

Anyways glad it's done. Between this and what they did with power wepons I can't wait to see some of the more unique models people come up with on the table. With this a terminator is a terminator and we can all focus on making them as crazy and unique looking as possible.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
It seems to me that the combi weapon part on the bolter is meant to enhance the bolter, not be a secondary weapon.

Think of it as a bayonet or a Digital Weapon.

Is it stupid? Sure. But it's Collector friendly.

But that's not what it is. It's literally a different weapon, and not the kind where it's the same niche.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
It seems to me that the combi weapon part on the bolter is meant to enhance the bolter, not be a secondary weapon.

Think of it as a bayonet or a Digital Weapon.

Is it stupid? Sure. But it's Collector friendly.

As long as they refuse to include all the necessary parts in a kit/sell an upgrade kit that has it, this is a sacrifice I think that is better overall for the game, despite making things a bit blander.

OR we can demand GW make bitz sprues or better design kits to begin with.

It's absolute insanity what I'm seeing here. It's like none of you have played an edition before 8th.

I started in 1997. If they won't design better, and since they make incredible profit no matter what they have no reason to do it, the next best thing is to sacrifice some flavor for the sake of balancing. Is it ideal? Maybe not, but as long as GW is rewarded for mediocre rules it won't change.

Hell, the fact 40k is no longer a small scale game where individual weapons matter is IMHO reason enough to get rid of all of it. In a game the size of what 40k is mean to represent I shouldn't care if a squad has a flamer, or a meltagun, or a missile launcher or whatever. Just that it has something. This isn't a small skirmish game where individual equipment should matter. if 40k is a platoon at most level game, which it isn't anymore, then yeah sure I may care what a squad has. But then flyers/big tanks/superheavies don't belong. So it can't be platoon level. At company or higher, you don't care about specific weapons, it's all genericized (and often small scale but that's not the topic for debate)

But GW decided that it will be run like a skirmish game with large number of models, and not like a historical, where potentialy under a changed scale a single intercessor could represent an entire squad.

It is nice to have expectation, and there is ton of things GW should be doing , from players point of view, but they don't. But in the end the reality is that if it doesn't affect the sales GW is not going to do it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Boosykes 809431 11521323 wrote:
Anyways glad it's done. Between this and what they did with power wepons I can't wait to see some of the more unique models people come up with on the table. With this a terminator is a terminator and we can all focus on making them as crazy and unique looking as possible.

What about armies where unique power weapons and psychic powers was the defining part of what made the army? If all nemezis weapons are the same, bar maybe the hammer. And psychic powers for units and characterss look like the ones on the librarian, then GW is going to have to do some drastic point drops or release 4-5 new unit types for GK, just so they can actualy play the game.

Karol wrote:
But GW decided that it will be run like a skirmish game with large number of models, and not like a historical, where potentialy under a changed scale a single intercessor could represent an entire squad.

It is nice to have expectation, and there is ton of things GW should be doing , from players point of view, but they don't. But in the end the reality is that if it doesn't affect the sales GW is not going to do it.

They can decide whatever they want, the fact remains that "skirmish game with lots of models" is a piss-poor way to do a game, and is not sustainable, and maybe they finally are realizing that and taking steps to fix it.

Sure. Then you go to the higher ups and explain them, why you think the game should be designed with most players spending 500$ instead of 1000$, they spend now, on avarge. And yeah it is not sustainable, but maybe GW thinks that in X years the model making industry will be drasticly different with all the 3d printing going on. Right now in my part of the world, people create 1 to 1 perfect copies of GW models in resin, before their official premier. And they can do nothing to stop it. The poles, czechs, germans etc all do it. And GW should thank God that Russians and Ukrainians are busy right now. Because stuff like the new termis, guants etc and I expect the librarian to be on etsy. And even if GW takes those down, they can't delete them from people hard drives. So maybe GW knows it is unsustainable, knows it doesn't have a legion of 12-14y olds playing their games, so they milk the 30+ age demographic as much as they can. Sprinkling nostalgia stuff and remakes of old models.

catbarf wrote:It seems to me like GW really is trying to give every unit some kind of ability to make it interesting and useful, even down to the glorified buses.

It remains to be seen how hard it will be to keep track of all of that in practice, but I like the idea of each unit having something that sets it apart and gives you reason to consider it besides just raw stats.

I think Daedalus81 has it right.

Daedalus81 wrote:Yea so this transport article sort of exemplifies what makes 40K.

You can dodge a charge by hopping into a Repulsor.
A Falcon works in tandem with it's cargo.
Guard can still command from a Chimera.
Taurox, Impulsors, and probably DE boats will be able to run and dump.
Orks can bring hilarious gunboats.

It might not be the most exciting choice, but limiting a faction to a specific transport rule would be make it easier to memorize and help focus on a certain play style.

Karol wrote:
Sure. Then you go to the higher ups and explain them, why you think the game should be designed with most players spending 500$ instead of 1000$, they spend now, on avarge. And yeah it is not sustainable, but maybe GW thinks that in X years the model making industry will be drasticly different with all the 3d printing going on. Right now in my part of the world, people create 1 to 1 perfect copies of GW models in resin, before their official premier. And they can do nothing to stop it. The poles, czechs, germans etc all do it. And GW should thank God that Russians and Ukrainians are busy right now. Because stuff like the new termis, guants etc and I expect the librarian to be on etsy. And even if GW takes those down, they can't delete them from people hard drives. So maybe GW knows it is unsustainable, knows it doesn't have a legion of 12-14y olds playing their games, so they milk the 30+ age demographic as much as they can. Sprinkling nostalgia stuff and remakes of old models.

The vast majority of people will buy from GW even if printing is easier. Going to a store is simply faster, easier, less error prone, you can return it if you need to, and it comes with decals.

I like a lot of what I'm seeing with the new transport rules.

Letting units hop out and shoot seems like it will make mechanized infantry more interesting. It adds a fair bit to your units' threat range on the turn you actually attack. Given that assault ramps are coming back, I'm hopeful that drukhari vehicles will get a similar treatment. I miss being able to launch wyches out of a raider with a power slide so they can pull off long charges. It used to be a big part of what made the army feel fast.

Marines learned to share vehicles! How sweet! Next thing you know, they'll be playing catch in the yard.

My nitpicks:
* The taurox would not have been my first guess at which vehicle is extra super duper good at dropping off infantry while moving at speed. I don't think my eldar especially *need* to be able to disembark after their skimmers advance, but it might seem a little weird if the treaded human vehicle can do it and they can't?

* The falcon's fire support rule seems mildly weird. Assuming the pulse laser is still non-optional (as it always has been), that means the falcon is going to be inclined to shoot at heavier targets like vehicles. The only eldar units with small enough unit sizes to fit inside a falcon that also want to shoot at tanks are dark reapers (who want to keep their distance and thus arguably don't need a transport as much), fire dragons (which is the current and classic pairing so that tracks), and maybe warlock squads if you kit them out with singing spears. So just a bit of weird anti-synergy there, but not a big deal. I guess there's nothing stopping you from shooting the pulse laser into a squad of termagants or whatever if you want to have dire avengers riding in the falcon. Guess I was just expecting something a bit more general.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
* The falcon's fire support rule seems mildly weird. Assuming the pulse laser is still non-optional (as it always has been), that means the falcon is going to be inclined to shoot at heavier targets like vehicles. The only eldar units with small enough unit sizes to fit inside a falcon that also want to shoot at tanks are dark reapers (who want to keep their distance and thus arguably don't need a transport as much), fire dragons (which is the current and classic pairing so that tracks), and maybe warlock squads if you kit them out with singing spears. So just a bit of weird anti-synergy there, but not a big deal. I guess there's nothing stopping you from shooting the pulse laser into a squad of termagants or whatever if you want to have dire avengers riding in the falcon. Guess I was just expecting something a bit more general.

Some banshees hop out, the Falcon moves off before plinking some Marines with its underslung Shuriken weapons. The Banshees then get to charge in with full rerolls to wound.

There's potential issues that 6 Fire Dragons are more likely to do something to a tank than say 6 Banshees hitting some Terminators, but still.

 Daedalus81 wrote:


Why is it shocking? Part of why GW might be doing is sunsetting kits with these kinds of weapons. Eventually they'll either legends them or make a new kit where the options aren't as expansive.

To be fair GW started sunsetting non-Marine kits long ago and probably would have started with marines already if there hadn't been an uproar after Primaris.

I personally welcome reducing options as I'd like to focus on making my models cool and not selecting what works this edition. It's what I like about AoS currently: I just kitbash cool models with almost whatever weapon I have and it works without some DnD Rules Lawyer going "Well Achually this is a force micro stave and not a Vibro nunchaku. Therefore you are technically playing with an illegal loadout FYI unless you accept the worse stats of the force micro stave..."

Added bonus is that this could potentially open for some 3rd party creativity.

Tyel wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
* The falcon's fire support rule seems mildly weird. Assuming the pulse laser is still non-optional (as it always has been), that means the falcon is going to be inclined to shoot at heavier targets like vehicles. The only eldar units with small enough unit sizes to fit inside a falcon that also want to shoot at tanks are dark reapers (who want to keep their distance and thus arguably don't need a transport as much), fire dragons (which is the current and classic pairing so that tracks), and maybe warlock squads if you kit them out with singing spears. So just a bit of weird anti-synergy there, but not a big deal. I guess there's nothing stopping you from shooting the pulse laser into a squad of termagants or whatever if you want to have dire avengers riding in the falcon. Guess I was just expecting something a bit more general.

Some banshees hop out, the Falcon moves off before plinking some Marines with its underslung Shuriken weapons. The Banshees then get to charge in with full rerolls to wound.

There's potential issues that 6 Fire Dragons are more likely to do something to a tank than say 6 Banshees hitting some Terminators, but still.

Yeah, i also thought of Fire Dragons first, but it's probably intended to do suppressing fire with Scatter Lasers, Eldar Missile launchers, shuriken weapons etc. and then rush in with Banshees or other close combat specialists. I suppose the Falcon will get some sort of assault ramp style rule to allow charging after disembarking, or alternatively some of the Aspect warriors have it on their sheet as their special skill.

dominuschao wrote:
I'm becoming less enthused with each of these reveals. 9th has it's problems and I'll reserve final judgement, but if I had to choose between bloat or no choices I'll take bloat.
Brewing is one of the most enjoyable aspects for me. I really hope that doesn't get homogenized in the quest for perfect balance.
Also I am concerned that certain factions will get screwed. Marines for example have a billion HQ data sheets but drukhari has very few. So forced joining units is not a big problem for SM. But drukhari probably won't be seeing an archon alongside grots or succubus with incubi. This new approach just seems worse for less supported factions.

Don't worry, GW already have a fix planned - even more Marine HQs.

Ah, I missed that fire support could help with melee attacks too. For some reason I thought it was only helpful for shooting. That does make more sense. And honestly, I don't necessarily need a falcon assault ramp (especially for banshees). Falcons basically providing their own mini-doom for whatever was riding inside them is pretty good. Although... does this mean that the falcon successfully got a useful, fluffy fire support mechanic before the wave serpent did? The 6th(?) edition weirdness that made the serpent shield into a gun ended up outshining the units inside, and it never really felt like much of a "support" weapon until 9th edition. (Where it was a stratagem that I never used.) So the idea that the falcon might be doing the same basic idea but better on the first try is kind of funny.

Edit: I will say, I'm really fond of a lot of the transport rules both from this preview and from some of the later 9th edition books. Stuff like chimas/devilfish being able to help out the squads that disembark from them helps solidify them as support units for their own passengers, which is cool. It means that transports can contribute without having to have extremely impressive defense or offense of their own.

Wayniac wrote:

Hell, the fact 40k is no longer a small scale game where individual weapons matter is IMHO reason enough to get rid of all of it. In a game the size of what 40k is mean to represent I shouldn't care if a squad has a flamer, or a meltagun, or a missile launcher or whatever. . .

The don't pay attention to it.

But for those of us who actually like it, why remove it?

You always had the choice to not care about what your squads were armed with. All your doing then is removing the choice for people like me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dai wrote:
Yeah the horse is long bolted if you're bothered by the sterilisation of the game.

But does it mean that one can't be bothered about further sterilization?

 Insectum7 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

Hell, the fact 40k is no longer a small scale game where individual weapons matter is IMHO reason enough to get rid of all of it. In a game the size of what 40k is mean to represent I shouldn't care if a squad has a flamer, or a meltagun, or a missile launcher or whatever. . .

The don't pay attention to it.

But for those of us who actually like it, why remove it?

You always had the choice to not care about what your squads were armed with. All your doing then is removing the choice for people like me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dai wrote:
Yeah the horse is long bolted if you're bothered by the sterilisation of the game.

But does it mean that one can't be bothered about further sterilization?

Because "people like you" (your words, not mine) are why the game is so bogged down and bloated. Because you have a game that's company/battalion level with minutiae for a skirmish game. By virtue of it existing, it's problematic. It's not just a matter of "well ignore it then", it's the fact that because it exists, it bloats the game whether someone ignores it or embraces it.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

Hell, the fact 40k is no longer a small scale game where individual weapons matter is IMHO reason enough to get rid of all of it. In a game the size of what 40k is mean to represent I shouldn't care if a squad has a flamer, or a meltagun, or a missile launcher or whatever. . .

The don't pay attention to it.

But for those of us who actually like it, why remove it?

You always had the choice to not care about what your squads were armed with. All your doing then is removing the choice for people like me.

I feel like 2k point games are sort of the worst of both worlds for the playerbase. I feel like some of us basically want to be playing Apoc (big armies, less IGoUGo, no need to worry about the minutia of squad upgrades) while others among us prefer a smaller, more zoomed-in game with more customization and fewer units to avoid bogging the game down. Right now, games above 1500 feel like they're trying to provide small game customization to big game armies.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

Hell, the fact 40k is no longer a small scale game where individual weapons matter is IMHO reason enough to get rid of all of it. In a game the size of what 40k is mean to represent I shouldn't care if a squad has a flamer, or a meltagun, or a missile launcher or whatever. . .

The don't pay attention to it.

But for those of us who actually like it, why remove it?

You always had the choice to not care about what your squads were armed with. All your doing then is removing the choice for people like me.

I feel like 2k point games are sort of the worst of both worlds for the playerbase. I feel like some of us basically want to be playing Apoc (big armies, less IGoUGo, no need to worry about the minutia of squad upgrades) while others among us prefer a smaller, more zoomed-in game with more customization and fewer units to avoid bogging the game down. Right now, games above 1500 feel like they're trying to provide small game customization to big game armies.

They are. 1500 should have stayed the "standard" game size. Enough to have a fun game with some bite, but curb some of the more egregious Apoc-type nonsense. 2k is like the absolute worst because it's just enough to focus on skew/spam and dis-incentivize well rounded lists. ther's a reason why for over a decade 2k was normal for WHFB but 40k was 1500 for everything, and 2k was for those special "better part of a weekend" games when you really wanted to bring something special and have a spectacle.

The entire problem is that 40k is trying to be like 3 games in one:

1) A squad or platoon-level game

2) A company or battalion game

3) A large battalion or brigade level game where you have flyers and war machines that can wipe out huge swathes of the board in one go.

The issue is those types of games each wants different levels of abstraction. A small-scale game cares what each trooper has, because it matters that Brother Cassius has a flamer and Brother Gaius has a power fist. Company an higher games don't need to differentiate, you just need to know that they're equipped to deal with a variety of threats. Brigade level games require even more abstraction than that, because you're concerned with the high level not individual commanders and things.

Wayniac wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

Hell, the fact 40k is no longer a small scale game where individual weapons matter is IMHO reason enough to get rid of all of it. In a game the size of what 40k is mean to represent I shouldn't care if a squad has a flamer, or a meltagun, or a missile launcher or whatever. . .

The don't pay attention to it.

But for those of us who actually like it, why remove it?

You always had the choice to not care about what your squads were armed with. All your doing then is removing the choice for people like me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dai wrote:
Yeah the horse is long bolted if you're bothered by the sterilisation of the game.

But does it mean that one can't be bothered about further sterilization?

Because "people like you" (your words, not mine) are why the game is so bogged down and bloated. Because you have a game that's company/battalion level with minutiae for a skirmish game. By virtue of it existing, it's problematic. It's not just a matter of "well ignore it then", it's the fact that because it exists, it bloats the game whether someone ignores it or embraces it.

Is it because of people like me? Even though I've often argued for consolidation numerous times?

There's a way to do it smart, and there's a way to do it dumb. Bolt Rifle incorporating it's different versions is smart. Combi's losing their different versions is dumb. ESPECIALLY dumb when those versions are already existing weapon profiles.

Be careful for what you wish for, I guess. . . especially if it's in the hands of GW.

Wayniac wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

Hell, the fact 40k is no longer a small scale game where individual weapons matter is IMHO reason enough to get rid of all of it. In a game the size of what 40k is mean to represent I shouldn't care if a squad has a flamer, or a meltagun, or a missile launcher or whatever. . .

The don't pay attention to it.

But for those of us who actually like it, why remove it?

You always had the choice to not care about what your squads were armed with. All your doing then is removing the choice for people like me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dai wrote:
Yeah the horse is long bolted if you're bothered by the sterilisation of the game.

But does it mean that one can't be bothered about further sterilization?

Because "people like you" (your words, not mine) are why the game is so bogged down and bloated. Because you have a game that's company/battalion level with minutiae for a skirmish game. By virtue of it existing, it's problematic. It's not just a matter of "well ignore it then", it's the fact that because it exists, it bloats the game whether someone ignores it or embraces it.

Are you saying that Special Weapons are bloat?

 Insectum7 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

Hell, the fact 40k is no longer a small scale game where individual weapons matter is IMHO reason enough to get rid of all of it. In a game the size of what 40k is mean to represent I shouldn't care if a squad has a flamer, or a meltagun, or a missile launcher or whatever. . .

The don't pay attention to it.

But for those of us who actually like it, why remove it?

You always had the choice to not care about what your squads were armed with. All your doing then is removing the choice for people like me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dai wrote:
Yeah the horse is long bolted if you're bothered by the sterilisation of the game.

But does it mean that one can't be bothered about further sterilization?

Because "people like you" (your words, not mine) are why the game is so bogged down and bloated. Because you have a game that's company/battalion level with minutiae for a skirmish game. By virtue of it existing, it's problematic. It's not just a matter of "well ignore it then", it's the fact that because it exists, it bloats the game whether someone ignores it or embraces it.

Is it because of people like me? Even though I've often argued for consolidation numerous times?

There's a way to do it smart, and there's a way to do it dumb. Bolt Rifle incorporating it's different versions is smart. Combi's losing their different versions is dumb. ESPECIALLY dumb when those versions are already existing weapon profiles.

Be careful for what you wish for, I guess. . . especially if it's in the hands of GW.

I lived through 3rd edition, I know this all too well. And it sucks, I get it. But I think if they want a balanced game they need it to avoid bloat.

Wayniac wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
It seems to me that the combi weapon part on the bolter is meant to enhance the bolter, not be a secondary weapon.

Think of it as a bayonet or a Digital Weapon.

Is it stupid? Sure. But it's Collector friendly.

But that's not what it is. It's literally a different weapon, and not the kind where it's the same niche.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
It seems to me that the combi weapon part on the bolter is meant to enhance the bolter, not be a secondary weapon.

Think of it as a bayonet or a Digital Weapon.

Is it stupid? Sure. But it's Collector friendly.

As long as they refuse to include all the necessary parts in a kit/sell an upgrade kit that has it, this is a sacrifice I think that is better overall for the game, despite making things a bit blander.

OR we can demand GW make bitz sprues or better design kits to begin with.

It's absolute insanity what I'm seeing here. It's like none of you have played an edition before 8th.

I started in 1997. If they won't design better, and since they make incredible profit no matter what they have no reason to do it,

Probably because y'all still buy it anyway. Plastic Crack USED to be a joke, but with how Dude and you are replying, I don't think it's a joke at this point.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

Hell, the fact 40k is no longer a small scale game where individual weapons matter is IMHO reason enough to get rid of all of it. In a game the size of what 40k is mean to represent I shouldn't care if a squad has a flamer, or a meltagun, or a missile launcher or whatever. . .

The don't pay attention to it.

But for those of us who actually like it, why remove it?

You always had the choice to not care about what your squads were armed with. All your doing then is removing the choice for people like me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dai wrote:
Yeah the horse is long bolted if you're bothered by the sterilisation of the game.

But does it mean that one can't be bothered about further sterilization?

Because "people like you" (your words, not mine) are why the game is so bogged down and bloated. Because you have a game that's company/battalion level with minutiae for a skirmish game. By virtue of it existing, it's problematic. It's not just a matter of "well ignore it then", it's the fact that because it exists, it bloats the game whether someone ignores it or embraces it.

Are you saying that Special Weapons are bloat?

In a company or higher game? Yes. Below that, no. MAYBE company level, it depends.

Company/Battalion level doesn't need to know "this guy has a plasma gun", it just needs to know the squad has whatever appropriate equipment they need to deal with the "relevant" situation.That's why in most historical games at that level the type of weapon doesn't actually matter and doesn't have its own special rules, it's just a generic approach because as a battalion/brigade commander, you don't need to care about minutiae like that. In a platoon or squad level game you care about each guy's individual weaponry. You don't at higher abstractions, because in-game you trust the individual commanders take care of it.

40k is trying to be like multiple levels of wargame rolled into one, and that's where a lot of the issues come from. Ideally there should be 3 "games" of 40k:

1) Kill Team (small, squad level, focus on individual)
2) 40k "Normal" (call it Incursoin/Strike Force whatever; this is "regular" 40k with a step up of abstraction from Kill Team as it's larger)
3) Onslaught/Apocalypse (even more abstracted than normal, most special/heavy weapons don't even get unique stats because it's not relevant)

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Probably because y'all still buy it anyway. Plastic Crack USED to be a joke, but with how Dude and you are replying, I don't think it's a joke at this point.

I always took it as 'haha plastic crack...too funny' *scratch scratch scratch* 'Say, uhh, anyone got $50 I can borrow?'

Wayniac wrote:


Company/Battalion level doesn't need to know "this guy has a plasma gun", it just needs to know the squad has whatever appropriate equipment they need to deal with the "relevant" situation.That's why in most historical games at that level the type of weapon doesn't actually matter and doesn't have its own special rules, it's just a generic approach because as a battalion/brigade commander, you don't need to care about minutiae like that. In a platoon or squad level game you care about each guy's individual weaponry. You don't at higher abstractions, because in-game you trust the individual commanders take care of it.

40k is trying to be like multiple levels of wargame rolled into one, and that's where a lot of the issues come from. Ideally there should be 3 "games" of 40k:

1) Kill Team (small, squad level, focus on individual)
2) 40k "Normal" (call it Incursoin/Strike Force whatever; this is "regular" 40k with a step up of abstraction from Kill Team as it's larger)
3) Onslaught/Apocalypse (even more abstracted than normal, most special/heavy weapons don't even get unique stats because it's not relevant)

Luckily there are, Kill Team / 40k / Epic ( / BFG )

But yeah, solid game design requires a vision of the desired level of operations. I would contend that 40k doesn't really reach above platoon level gaming despite sometimes having a company's worth of models, as the action itself is too constrained in its objectives. Definitely nowhere near battalion level. A battalion level game would be one of maneuver, with larger objectives and more focus on coordination between various arms of your military. Epic: Armageddon and the like do that pretty well, as the games feel like fluid maneuver wars at a moving battlefront. Apocalypse below that is solidly in the company level range, where you might be fighting over a suburb or other proper terrain features. In regular 40k, it's more of a brawl over one relevant building, something you'd send a platoon to do. Sure, you might put more men and maybe attach a higher level support element like a super-heavy to actually do it, but "take that road / factory / church / supply storage" are just small mission objectives.

I feel the general community has somewhat suffered from the original culling of the classic Specialist Games line, as enjoying 40k universe only through one monolithic game is always going to end up disappointing some. Much easier to scratch any particular itch with a well designed game for it if you've got a larger suite to choose from at any time.

Well put Sherrypie, Exalted

Wayniac wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

Hell, the fact 40k is no longer a small scale game where individual weapons matter is IMHO reason enough to get rid of all of it. In a game the size of what 40k is mean to represent I shouldn't care if a squad has a flamer, or a meltagun, or a missile launcher or whatever. . .

The don't pay attention to it.

But for those of us who actually like it, why remove it?

You always had the choice to not care about what your squads were armed with. All your doing then is removing the choice for people like me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dai wrote:
Yeah the horse is long bolted if you're bothered by the sterilisation of the game.

But does it mean that one can't be bothered about further sterilization?

Because "people like you" (your words, not mine) are why the game is so bogged down and bloated. Because you have a game that's company/battalion level with minutiae for a skirmish game. By virtue of it existing, it's problematic. It's not just a matter of "well ignore it then", it's the fact that because it exists, it bloats the game whether someone ignores it or embraces it.

Is it because of people like me? Even though I've often argued for consolidation numerous times?

There's a way to do it smart, and there's a way to do it dumb. Bolt Rifle incorporating it's different versions is smart. Combi's losing their different versions is dumb. ESPECIALLY dumb when those versions are already existing weapon profiles.

Be careful for what you wish for, I guess. . . especially if it's in the hands of GW.

I lived through 3rd edition, I know this all too well. And it sucks, I get it. But I think if they want a balanced game they need it to avoid bloat.

Goddamnit the whole "kill options for balance" battlecry is so stupid.

Yes, they need to avoid bloat. But not for balance. Bloat is bad for cognitive overload during gameplay. Bloat is when nobody knows what anything can do because there are 5 layers of special rules, equipment, and stratagems, which are opaque to the opponent. Bloat is the Space Marines equipment list being 3x that of any other faction.

Are combi-weapons bloat? They've traditionally simply been the same weapon that already exists, attached to another weapon that already exists. If you know what a Bolter does, and you know what a Meltagun does, then you know what a combi-Melta does. Easy peasy.

Are combi-weapons unbalanced? They are if you don't pay for them! But if you have to pay for them. . . then no, they're not a source of imbalance as long as the points costs are reasonable.

That you bring up 3rd is funny. By the time 4th rolled around Tactical Squads were back to being able to take Plasma Cannons and Multimeltas even though they were cut as options from the 3rd ed book. Time will tell I suppose.
. . .

But "remove options for better balance" is such a dumb argument. . .