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.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
The fluff is already completely out of sync with the game.

Then, if fluff is so important to you, why are you playing this game?

So why not change the new wounding chart?

Because that has complicated effects across the entire game. For example, it means abandoning the "everything can wound everything" principle which, whether you agree with it or not, is something GW has invested in. Consolidating redundant options has a much smaller effect.

Who cares who it's aimed at, if you enjoy it?

It's just an amusing thing to think about, how supposed adults are taking pride in an aspect of the game that exists to exploit the immaturity of younger players.

Surely you must enjoy something about 40k, Peregrine. Otherwise, you wouldn't be here. Something about what it IS, not what it could be in your ideal world, which would put you in the "playing a children's game" camp, like all of us who play.
Or maybe not, and you hate everything about 40k. If so, and this is indeed a game "for children", why don't you let it be that? Ifyou dislike it so much, why do you play 40k?

You misunderstand the point. It's not that 40k is nothing but a game for children, it's that the current level of rules bloat seems to be aimed that way. If you enjoy other parts of the game/hobby and hate the rules bloat that's not the same thing as praising the rules bloat and how many "options" it gives you.

So... this argument about flatlining all statlines for weapon choices related to the no model, no rule policy because?

Do you truly believe minimizing the model ranges as well as the weapon ranges, the game will become better? I just don't buy this argument.

What's the difference between your proposal and the recent 'throwing cash at each other rather than wasting time buying and modelling the new meta units' article? The models?

The competitive scene will always follow the meta, whether it's the obsec scatbike spam, JSJ warp spider spam, reaper spam, D scythe spam, neg. hit mod stack, super friends, farsight bomb, etc. You say that the models are to blame for GW's inability to balance things via rules, but rather it's the GW's inability to balance the rules that create these models & their necessities. Dumbing down the model range isn't going to make the rulewriters suddenly write better rules because - let's face it, we all know there's always that THE weapon and which units are THE units. They're not working with any more units or weapons than they would be under your proposal/direction.

 skchsan wrote:
So... this argument about flatlining all statlines for weapon choices related to the no model, no rule policy because?

Because it's a question of how closely the rules need to follow all possible models. The original example was the no-options ork kits, which are a good thing because they free the model customization from the rules options. The unit always has the same rules, so you don't need to worry about WYSIWYG or rules optimization in choosing how to build your looted vehicle.

Do you truly believe minimizing the model ranges as well as the weapon ranges, the game will become better? I just don't buy this argument.

I'm not arguing for minimizing model ranges. Cutting out rules bloat, however, does improve the game.

What's the difference between your proposal and the recent 'throwing cash at each other rather than wasting time buying and modelling the new meta units' article? The models?

The fact that my goal is to improve the game as a game and has nothing to do with "the new expensive thing always wins".

So whats the diffeence between your proposal and 30k?

Bharring wrote:

I'd love it if they added a 50ppm upgrade for Archons that gave them a Jetbike. At 50ppm, it's almost certainly overpriced, so won't impact balance. But it'd add options. So most wouldn't use it, but it would be fun.

Instead of making an upgrade option for the Archon I would rather it be its own units. It would improve the paltry selection of the current HQ selection and it would be easier to manipulate a separate codex entry than just having it as an upgrade. The Craftworld Codex already does that for example by explicitly differentiating the different Autarch units as their own separate things instead of a static single entry.

Which is btw what I've been trying to reflect upon in my posts on what GW is trying to do. They are removing options on single entries, but adding more unique entries(and way too many Primaris Lieutenants). There is also a production benefit to this. Instead of being stuck with a single kit that can never be exchanged(without redoing it/replacing it completely), they can now always add new Autarch/Archon units as they desire. They are kinda doing it with AoS already as Khorne has separate Slaughterpriest entries and so on.

Also, the end benefit - on a global scale - with having units a bit focused in production and sale is that there is less excess plastic going to waste. I mean, my coffers are overflowing with unused plastic from the many armies I collect which means there is a lot of excess plastic in circulation. I know this argument is a bit besides the point, but something I have been thinking to myself as of late.

I know I went a bit besides the point, but I also kinda want to believe we'll eventually see an Archon on Jetbike or something similar. One of their main players - Vraesque Malidrach - is a former Reaver biker so if they were to flesh out more of the Drukhari it would be something to aim for. With their current approach I think we will start seeing more unique units with varying abilities coming out to flesh out the campaign books they will be releasing like Vigilus. I still want to believe Vect will return to us in all his sadistic glory.

 Eldarsif wrote:

Instead of making an upgrade option for the Archon I would rather it be its own units. It would improve the paltry selection of the current HQ selection and it would be easier to manipulate a separate codex entry than just having it as an upgrade. The Craftworld Codex already does that for example by explicitly differentiating the different Autarch units as their own separate things instead of a static single entry.

Whilst I would love the option of Wings and/or a Bike for the Archon, I don't think they need to be separate entries. Or, at the very least, I wouldn't want to count them as being separate HQ choices.

If we really want to improve the HQ selection, then we should be looking for stuff like:
- Scourge HQ (cheap, ranged HQ choice that can buff Scourges)
- Mandrake HQ (cheapish HQ that can teleport and buff Mandrakes)
- (unnamed) Incubi HQ (Drazhar: good version )
- Mini-Haemonculus HQ (Cheaper Haemonculus with worse stats and a weaker buff - maybe reroll 1s to-wound in melee or something)
- Maybe a Dracon (providing that the Archon is actually made into a worthwhile HQ choice first)

Basically, if we really want more diversity, let's aim for HQs that aren't just 'Archon riding a bike'.

Waaaghpower wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Slayer,
If the end goal were truly balance, and not anything else, than what balance-based reason is there to play something other than flip-a-coin? It's easily demonstrable that there is no more-balanced game. As such, how could you reason that there'd be a better option? Other equally-ideal (balanced) options, sure, but nothing is better balanced.

That is why I'm saying balance does *not* need to be the end goal. The end goal can include balance, but must be only part of the goal.

This is why I say the end goal should be enjoyment. A mechanical end goal usually lends to trivial yet useless solutions like "play flip-a-coin!".

I did miss that you were referring to only the second half of the second sentence and ignoring the first half. Your reference to balance I inferred as referring to the "balance" half. Some parts of posts - such as the 'go play flip-a-coin' - have no value divorced from the argument being formed. I hope noone seriously believed I was actually suggesting we play 'flip-a-coin'.

So, to tie it all together, I'm saying they *should* be trying to balance. But the goal should be enjoyment. With balance sought to improve enjoyment and not for balance's sake itself.

Another note: 40k will never be a truly "Competitive" game for as long as it relies on randomness as a key factor of determining who wins.

Under this sorta logic, are you saying MtG isn't a competitive game?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
Slayer,
If the end goal were truly balance, and not anything else, than what balance-based reason is there to play something other than flip-a-coin? It's easily demonstrable that there is no more-balanced game. As such, how could you reason that there'd be a better option? Other equally-ideal (balanced) options, sure, but nothing is better balanced.

That is why I'm saying balance does *not* need to be the end goal. The end goal can include balance, but must be only part of the goal.

This is why I say the end goal should be enjoyment. A mechanical end goal usually lends to trivial yet useless solutions like "play flip-a-coin!".

I did miss that you were referring to only the second half of the second sentence and ignoring the first half. Your reference to balance I inferred as referring to the "balance" half. Some parts of posts - such as the 'go play flip-a-coin' - have no value divorced from the argument being formed. I hope noone seriously believed I was actually suggesting we play 'flip-a-coin'.

So, to tie it all together, I'm saying they *should* be trying to balance. But the goal should be enjoyment. With balance sought to improve enjoyment and not for balance's sake itself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Eldarsif,
I'd love it if they added a 50ppm upgrade for Archons that gave them a Jetbike. At 50ppm, it's almost certainly overpriced, so won't impact balance. But it'd add options. So most wouldn't use it, but it would be fun.

As I said, story should be the driver, but the end goal should be balance. That's why I used the example of the most unappealing 20 point Space Marine. It would certainly fit fluff more; after all, 5 Infantry for every Marine would be more intense. For both players, in fact!

However, is it more "fun" if we kept those basic Marine stats for that 20 point Marine? Hell, even Intercessors weren't correct at 20 points and they have more the wantings of "novel" Marines compared to the basic Space Marine and Chaos Marine.

If balance isn't the goal for the story to work, CAN the story actually work? Can the ML actually be fulfilling its role of being TAC when the Frag shot is absolutely terrible, to the point you wouldn't get your points back on horde units?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Slayer,
If the end goal were truly balance, and not anything else, than what balance-based reason is there to play something other than flip-a-coin? It's easily demonstrable that there is no more-balanced game. As such, how could you reason that there'd be a better option? Other equally-ideal (balanced) options, sure, but nothing is better balanced.

That is why I'm saying balance does *not* need to be the end goal. The end goal can include balance, but must be only part of the goal.

This is why I say the end goal should be enjoyment. A mechanical end goal usually lends to trivial yet useless solutions like "play flip-a-coin!".

I did miss that you were referring to only the second half of the second sentence and ignoring the first half. Your reference to balance I inferred as referring to the "balance" half. Some parts of posts - such as the 'go play flip-a-coin' - have no value divorced from the argument being formed. I hope noone seriously believed I was actually suggesting we play 'flip-a-coin'.

So, to tie it all together, I'm saying they *should* be trying to balance. But the goal should be enjoyment. With balance sought to improve enjoyment and not for balance's sake itself.

Another note: 40k will never be a truly "Competitive" game for as long as it relies on randomness as a key factor of determining who wins.

Under this sorta logic, are you saying MtG isn't a competitive game?

Uh, yes. Yes I am.
Not in the same sense that something like Starcraft or most major sports are, anyways. My use of the word "Competitive" might be a bit off here, though, so I guess I should clarify the definition I'm using:
In a competitive setting, the goal is to demonstrate superior skill or ability to one's opponent. (Be that mastery of a system, better planning, physical superiority, memorization, the ability to outthink, predict, or trick and opponent, etc.)

Magic is much more "Competitive" than 40k by this definition, because (To my memory, I haven't played it in years,) there's much more emphasis on deck management and ways to mitigate randomness than in 40k. You have to get the cards you need, but there's rarely going to be a situation where a card has a random or unpredictable effect, and even that only happens because you chose to put a card with a random effect into your deck. Randomness comes from three sources; What you draw, and what your opponent has in his deck, and what your opponent draws.
It's still not pure competition, though - The same decks, with the same players, will not always have the same outcomes due to nothing except luck.

Meanwhile, 40k randomness comes from so many things. What the terrain looks like, which you sometimes can control but in a tournament can't. What the deployment zones look like, which can have massive effects on the game. What is the mission, and is it something that works with your playstyle? (This is better, but by no means perfect, in ITC missions.)
Then, every time you act with a unit outside of moving it, you have to deal with randomness. (And you deal with randomness when you move, too, if you want to advance.) It's quite common to make attacks that are very capable of one-shotting important enemies, and also very capable of doing nothing at all. In some cases this gets taken to absurd extremes. Firing a meltagun in close quarters usually has about a 1/3rd chance of doing damage, and then will do a semireliable amount of wounds from there. Firing a "Blast" weapon with a random amount of shots, though? You could do anything from gently fondling the space around the enemy to utterly obliterating whatever you want to shoot at.
Charge rolls can regularly make or break a game. It's about a 55% chance whether a player can make an 8" charge, and that's the difference between a unit doing all of its damage and doing no damage at all, the difference between an enemy unit being able to shoot next turn or being dead or tied up in combat, the difference between moving a unit 8+" across the board or leaving it where it stands. (Not to mention using charge ranges to grab objectives.) A single roll can have incredibly massive knockon effects that change the outcome of the game.

This isn't even including the bits of random foul luck and edge cases that can totally ruin even the best laid plans. Getting double 1s after spending a command point and failing to regenerate Celestine or get some other critical 2+ roll is unavoidable and can easily lose a game. Getting ridiculously lucky and rolling double 6s to keep the last man on an objective alive is just as capable for winning games that would otherwise be lost.

Even the end conditions are random - Is the game going to last 5, 6, or 7 turns? If it's a close game where one player isn't tabled early, it generally comes down to how many turns the game lasts, which is completely out of the players' control and also hugely important.


This isn't a criticism of luck based games, by the way. 40k is more interesting and more fun for having randomness and luck play a major part of it. I wouldn't enjoy it if everything were deterministic - I'm saying it's not a game built for pure competition, because it isn't. (At least not using the definition I'm using, as provided above.)

I hardly understand how those 40k games could be "narrative".
I mean, come on, the tank shoots al it's weapons from the single antenna that is popping out from the huge loss block. The single feather on single guardsman'd helmet cause the entire squad to die despite they are covered behing huge wall. Pointing your plasma weapon at eldar vehicles makes it blow in your hands. You can burn super-sonic jet with flamer on the ground.

Or how about those background behind the units? The ethereal demons are almost immune to mortal weapons to the point, that we need special blessed ammunition to cast them back to the warp? 5++, just throw some guardsmen at them, duh.
Demigod space marines? 1 attack 4str, the puny doggo from rogue trader has two in it's profile. Long fangs are hardened veterans, each survived many hundreds of battle. I suppose this battles was like entire strike force against single blob of cultists, othervise those 1w veterans will die in droves.
I will not even speak about those lighting fast eldars, who has such awesome speed, that regular monkey saw them blurred. According to our narrative wargame the single command from officer is enough to make this lazy guardens be faster than all your harlequins and aspect warriors.

There is no narrative in tabletop game, this is a wargame strategy with abstract mechanic. For the narrative and story telling one should try a tabletop rpg.

The majority of this thread boils down to arguments that have been had for the last 10 years. People want to play 40k competitively. People want every faction to be viable in competitive play and to play in a way that is close to the fluff when doing so. GW isn't good enough at writing rules for this to be possible.

GW's rules writers want to write rules that are fluffy and good enough to get people to use the models. They are not good enough at rules writing or at playing the game to consistantly succeed at it.

If the rules team was good at the game, they wouldn't have written a Tyranid codex (5th ed) where the strongest unit in the faction didn't have a model.

Players want a game that is as tightly written as war machine or MtG. Doing that for 40k is a massive task, one with a major risk of diminishing returns, that would take more money than GW is willing to spend on it.

Whilst I would love the option of Wings and/or a Bike for the Archon, I don't think they need to be separate entries. Or, at the very least, I wouldn't want to count them as being separate HQ choices.

If we really want to improve the HQ selection, then we should be looking for stuff like:
- Scourge HQ (cheap, ranged HQ choice that can buff Scourges)
- Mandrake HQ (cheapish HQ that can teleport and buff Mandrakes)
- (unnamed) Incubi HQ (Drazhar: good version )
- Mini-Haemonculus HQ (Cheaper Haemonculus with worse stats and a weaker buff - maybe reroll 1s to-wound in melee or something)
- Maybe a Dracon (providing that the Archon is actually made into a worthwhile HQ choice first)

Basically, if we really want more diversity, let's aim for HQs that aren't just 'Archon riding a bike'.

I agree that we should get more diversity. No argument from me there. I was more addressing the fact that some people desire their old Archon Windrunner back and how it will be and should be addressed.

However, if they were to add a Jetbike Archon that unit would best served as a separate unit so it can be made special in its own way. Perhaps it gives rerolls to Reavers or something similar. In short, I just don't want "An Archon, but with better movement and save".I want a unit that serves an explicit purpose. Whether that counts as a separate Rule of 3 item I am not beholden to one way or another.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Magic is much more "Competitive" than 40k by this definition, because (To my memory, I haven't played it in years,) there's much more emphasis on deck management and ways to mitigate randomness than in 40k.

To be fair mitigation is a thing in 40k and with ITC rules that randomness is mitigated even further. It is true that terrain is still a random factor, but I wouldn't be surprised we see explicit tournament table setups at some point and ITC already addresses some of the these issues by making the first floor LOS-blocking.

Both 40k and MtG use mitigation in regards to randomness and if you look at Star Wars: Destiny you see a game that is all about mitigation in regards to dice rolls. Command Rerolls, HQ Rerolls, Stratagems, Psychic Powers, these are all things working towards reducing randomness in 40k, but like SWD there is always a chance that all that mitigation fails you because the gods are fickle. Only difference is that MtG is peak mitigation whereas 40k has that small chance all things fail.

Personally I would say 40k is as competitive as Star Wars Destiny. Both have their winning units and badly balanced units/cards, and both rely on mitigating dice rolls to win with the difference that in SWD you can screw with your opponent's rolls much more than you can in 40k.

Peregrine wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
The fluff is already completely out of sync with the game.

Then, if fluff is so important to you, why are you playing this game?

Because the game is a vehicle by I can enjoy it. I can suspend my disbelief that "um akshually, Astartes power armour is so thick that those lasgun bolts wouldn't have done anything" and see it as a chance to get Your Dudes on the table and just enjoy Forging Narratives.

It's similar to how in Halo, Spartans in lore are incredibly INCREDIBLY powerful - and yet can still be killed by Grunts in the video game. Because the game and the lore are linked pretty much through the same skin, and for some people, that's enough for them.

So why not change the new wounding chart?

Because that has complicated effects across the entire game. For example, it means abandoning the "everything can wound everything" principle which, whether you agree with it or not, is something GW has invested in. Consolidating redundant options has a much smaller effect.

Except it strips flavour out of the game, which I don't think is a worthwhile sacrifice.

Who cares who it's aimed at, if you enjoy it?

It's just an amusing thing to think about, how supposed adults are taking pride in an aspect of the game that exists to exploit the immaturity of younger players.

Why is that amusing? Why is it amusing what people choose to enjoy?

Surely you must enjoy something about 40k, Peregrine. Otherwise, you wouldn't be here. Something about what it IS, not what it could be in your ideal world, which would put you in the "playing a children's game" camp, like all of us who play.
Or maybe not, and you hate everything about 40k. If so, and this is indeed a game "for children", why don't you let it be that? Ifyou dislike it so much, why do you play 40k?

You misunderstand the point. It's not that 40k is nothing but a game for children, it's that the current level of rules bloat seems to be aimed that way. If you enjoy other parts of the game/hobby and hate the rules bloat that's not the same thing as praising the rules bloat and how many "options" it gives you.

But you seem to hate more than just the rules bloat.
Plus, why options in inverted commas? Like it or not, they ARE options. Choosing between versatile but not stellar, or super-specialised (missile vs lascannon) is a choice.

Peregrine wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
So... this argument about flatlining all statlines for weapon choices related to the no model, no rule policy because?

Because it's a question of how closely the rules need to follow all possible models. The original example was the no-options ork kits, which are a good thing because they free the model customization from the rules options. The unit always has the same rules, so you don't need to worry about WYSIWYG or rules optimization in choosing how to build your looted vehicle.

And a counterpoint to that is wanting to see some variety between that kind of unit - people don't want all their Captains to play the same way.

Do you truly believe minimizing the model ranges as well as the weapon ranges, the game will become better? I just don't buy this argument.

I'm not arguing for minimizing model ranges. Cutting out rules bloat, however, does improve the game.

In your opinion.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:If balance isn't the goal for the story to work, CAN the story actually work?

Yes.

Can the ML actually be fulfilling its role of being TAC when the Frag shot is absolutely terrible, to the point you wouldn't get your points back on horde units?

If you want to guarantee that the story plays out correctly, removing the chance elements from it, then why don't we just buff the frag missiles instead of just cutting them out entirely? Approaches of "if it's bad, it has no purpose" can be rectified by simply making it not bad.

Silver144 wrote:I hardly understand how those 40k games could be "narrative".
I mean, come on, the tank shoots al it's weapons from the single antenna that is popping out from the huge loss block. The single feather on single guardsman'd helmet cause the entire squad to die despite they are covered behing huge wall. Pointing your plasma weapon at eldar vehicles makes it blow in your hands. You can burn super-sonic jet with flamer on the ground.

The tank is moving around the battlefield. It rotates, turns, fires on the move, etc etc.
The guardsmen are moving, sometimes exposing themselves to fire.
Plasma is volatile. In trying to focus on hitting the Eldar, the gunner forgets how much his gun is overheating.
The promethium rises, and creates a projection in the air? Or, the jet is flying lower than what we are used to in the modern day?

Or how about those background behind the units? The ethereal demons are almost immune to mortal weapons to the point, that we need special blessed ammunition to cast them back to the warp? 5++, just throw some guardsmen at them, duh.

With faith being tangible and belief literally being capable of making things work when they shouldn't, anything warp related could be beaten.
Alternatively, perhaps the daemonic connection is weak, and they're more susceptible to mortal weapons?

Demigod space marines? 1 attack 4str, the puny doggo from rogue trader has two in it's profile. Long fangs are hardened veterans, each survived many hundreds of battle. I suppose this battles was like entire strike force against single blob of cultists, othervise those 1w veterans will die in droves.

Being wounded in game doesn't mean death. Wounded can mean incapacitation, which is invaluable for something like a Space Marine which can recover from that very quickly.

I will not even speak about those lighting fast eldars, who has such awesome speed, that regular monkey saw them blurred. According to our narrative wargame the single command from officer is enough to make this lazy guardens be faster than all your harlequins and aspect warriors.

Not all guardsmen are lazy and untrained. Some are comprised of the pinnacle of human warriors, and are drilled daily for combat. Perhaps the Eldar (characteristically) underestimate the zeal and strength of the humans, and are caught backfooted?

There is no narrative in tabletop game, this is a wargame strategy with abstract mechanic. For the narrative and story telling one should try a tabletop rpg.

Can a tabletop RPG cover army-size battles from a commander's perspective as well as a TTG can?

 Eldarsif wrote:

I agree that we should get more diversity. No argument from me there. I was more addressing the fact that some people desire their old Archon Windrunner back and how it will be and should be addressed.

However, if they were to add a Jetbike Archon that unit would best served as a separate unit so it can be made special in its own way. Perhaps it gives rerolls to Reavers or something similar. In short, I just don't want "An Archon, but with better movement and save".I want a unit that serves an explicit purpose. Whether that counts as a separate Rule of 3 item I am not beholden to one way or another.

I'm not sure that Archons on Jetbikes or with Wings or whatever need to have a fundamentally different function from the base Archon. If anything, I think the issue is that the base Archon currently serves no purpose.

In the past, I've suggested replacing his aura with:

"At the beginning of each of your shooting phases, you may select an enemy unit within 18" of the Archon (or within 18" of a transport he's currently embarked on). Until the beginning of your next turn, all Drukhari units reroll 1s to hit against the chosen unit."

(Writ of the Living Muse would be tweaked so that units reroll 1s to hit and to wound against the chosen unit.)

This has several advantages over the current rules:
- It can be used from aboard a transport.
- It can affect other units embarked on transports.
- It encourages the Archon to get close, rather than sitting 36" away with a trio of Ravagers.
- It makes the Court of the Archon's reroll ability a lot more meaningful.
- It means that additional Archons in a list serve an actual purpose (as they can each designate different units to get rerolls against), rather than being pure taxes.
- It makes the Archon the army leader, not just the Kabal leader. At the absolute minimum, he should be able to buff all Mercenary units as well as Kabal units.

(I'd also like to see his weapons tweaked but I'll leave that for another thread.)

Peregrine- if the concept you want is so good how come epic 40000 nearly killed off epic. Even Andy chambers who designed it said it was so stripped down that it lost too much character.

And as for your point of the game design being aimed at children, one the rules are all on the datasheets now, no more pages of universal special rules to learn.
Two: you find it odd that you think the game of toy soldiers isn’t mature enough. It’s a game of toy soldiers. You can try to make it sound like you’re deep thinker and master strategist but really you are playing toy soldiers.

“When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.”
― C.S. Lewis

Andykp wrote:
Peregrine- if the concept you want is so good how come epic 40000 nearly killed off epic. Even Andy chambers who designed it said it was so stripped down that it lost too much character.

This, a game thats designed to be a pure 'game' needs to be either like DBA in its simplicity of rules but variation in factions, or needs to be a seriously good game, because you have essentially just detached it from the background totally. Its the background thats basically stopped the rival games getting much of a foot hold, 40k has decades of background to draw on, yes much of it is cheese, and a fair bit is naff, but its there, that tends to be what draws people in - other than those who buy an army, spray it the minimum three colours, use it for an event then sell it for the next one, they may as well be playing a card counters wargame to be honest.

Andykp wrote:
And as for your point of the game design being aimed at children, one the rules are all on the datasheets now, no more pages of universal special rules to learn.
Two: you find it odd that you think the game of toy soldiers isn’t mature enough. It’s a game of toy soldiers. You can try to make it sound like you’re deep thinker and master strategist but really you are playing toy soldiers.

I just wish they put more weapon options on the data sheets... e.g. Ork Warboss with no power klaw on the sheet because the current model doesn't have one, despite the one a lot of people have only having one.

if you want a 'pure' wargame with very few options the more historical games are the way to go, pick say the 3456th or foot and you get what they had for the period selected, with very little ability to min/max anything, but you will likely find models for exactly that.

now those games don't dominate the gaming world partly because of the number of models, but the skirmish ones don't dominate either, despite being very good games, specifically because of the lack of abilities to customise your army

leopard wrote:
...Ork Warboss with no power klaw on the sheet because the current model doesn't have one...

Wait, what? Boss with klaw is part of what Orks are. I can't think of many more iconic weapons in the game. It would be like removing a Commissars's bolt pistol.

Edit: I may have misunderstood you. Warbosses have power klaws. All is well.

Waaaghpower wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Slayer,
If the end goal were truly balance, and not anything else, than what balance-based reason is there to play something other than flip-a-coin? It's easily demonstrable that there is no more-balanced game. As such, how could you reason that there'd be a better option? Other equally-ideal (balanced) options, sure, but nothing is better balanced.

That is why I'm saying balance does *not* need to be the end goal. The end goal can include balance, but must be only part of the goal.

This is why I say the end goal should be enjoyment. A mechanical end goal usually lends to trivial yet useless solutions like "play flip-a-coin!".

I did miss that you were referring to only the second half of the second sentence and ignoring the first half. Your reference to balance I inferred as referring to the "balance" half. Some parts of posts - such as the 'go play flip-a-coin' - have no value divorced from the argument being formed. I hope noone seriously believed I was actually suggesting we play 'flip-a-coin'.

So, to tie it all together, I'm saying they *should* be trying to balance. But the goal should be enjoyment. With balance sought to improve enjoyment and not for balance's sake itself.

Another note: 40k will never be a truly "Competitive" game for as long as it relies on randomness as a key factor of determining who wins.

Under this sorta logic, are you saying MtG isn't a competitive game?

Uh, yes. Yes I am.
Not in the same sense that something like Starcraft or most major sports are, anyways. My use of the word "Competitive" might be a bit off here, though, so I guess I should clarify the definition I'm using:
In a competitive setting, the goal is to demonstrate superior skill or ability to one's opponent. (Be that mastery of a system, better planning, physical superiority, memorization, the ability to outthink, predict, or trick and opponent, etc.)

Magic is much more "Competitive" than 40k by this definition, because (To my memory, I haven't played it in years,) there's much more emphasis on deck management and ways to mitigate randomness than in 40k. You have to get the cards you need, but there's rarely going to be a situation where a card has a random or unpredictable effect, and even that only happens because you chose to put a card with a random effect into your deck. Randomness comes from three sources; What you draw, and what your opponent has in his deck, and what your opponent draws.
It's still not pure competition, though - The same decks, with the same players, will not always have the same outcomes due to nothing except luck.

Meanwhile, 40k randomness comes from so many things. What the terrain looks like, which you sometimes can control but in a tournament can't. What the deployment zones look like, which can have massive effects on the game. What is the mission, and is it something that works with your playstyle? (This is better, but by no means perfect, in ITC missions.)
Then, every time you act with a unit outside of moving it, you have to deal with randomness. (And you deal with randomness when you move, too, if you want to advance.) It's quite common to make attacks that are very capable of one-shotting important enemies, and also very capable of doing nothing at all. In some cases this gets taken to absurd extremes. Firing a meltagun in close quarters usually has about a 1/3rd chance of doing damage, and then will do a semireliable amount of wounds from there. Firing a "Blast" weapon with a random amount of shots, though? You could do anything from gently fondling the space around the enemy to utterly obliterating whatever you want to shoot at.
Charge rolls can regularly make or break a game. It's about a 55% chance whether a player can make an 8" charge, and that's the difference between a unit doing all of its damage and doing no damage at all, the difference between an enemy unit being able to shoot next turn or being dead or tied up in combat, the difference between moving a unit 8+" across the board or leaving it where it stands. (Not to mention using charge ranges to grab objectives.) A single roll can have incredibly massive knockon effects that change the outcome of the game.

This isn't even including the bits of random foul luck and edge cases that can totally ruin even the best laid plans. Getting double 1s after spending a command point and failing to regenerate Celestine or get some other critical 2+ roll is unavoidable and can easily lose a game. Getting ridiculously lucky and rolling double 6s to keep the last man on an objective alive is just as capable for winning games that would otherwise be lost.

Even the end conditions are random - Is the game going to last 5, 6, or 7 turns? If it's a close game where one player isn't tabled early, it generally comes down to how many turns the game lasts, which is completely out of the players' control and also hugely important.


This isn't a criticism of luck based games, by the way. 40k is more interesting and more fun for having randomness and luck play a major part of it. I wouldn't enjoy it if everything were deterministic - I'm saying it's not a game built for pure competition, because it isn't. (At least not using the definition I'm using, as provided above.)

Except in 40k you can minimize randomness too via know which units are less likely to be swingy and more likely to be consistently good in their performance. That's the same as deck management. Anything less you say you can't mitigate is the same as not being prepared for an opponent's side deck or not being able to control your matchup.

Sorry, but by your definition, there can be no such thing as a competitive TCG. No tabletop wargame can be competitive either, and people do think highly of those Privateer Press ones (though apparently the balance has gone down the last few years, but otherwise they've done a not-so-terrible job).

To me, that's just a bad excuse on your end to defend bad balance.

The pure denial is incredible here.
1. How many Grunts does it actually take to kill you in Halo though? Even on Legendary you need more than 6 of them, whereas two to three of anything else are more than a match for a Marine.
2. "Flavor" is merely an opinion for that. Flavor comes from the fluff text of the weapon. If you only cared about fluff, having some options consolidated really shouldn't bother you.
Then again you ask for free points per other threads so I'm not shocked by anything.
3. You can argue with Peregrine on that one. I missed their point on that overall.
4. Fake options aren't options, full stop. Even with the Skyhammer formation (the one that gave Drop Pod Devastators the Relentless rule when they disembarked), Multi-Melta wasn't a good option on Devastators.
So what would removing Multi-Meltas from Devastator squads do, just as an example? Absolutely nothing, because they were absolutely never the proper platform for that kind of weapon.
5. The variety comes from the models themselves. Ork players certainly don't have as many weapon options and yet their dedicated fanbase makes their hodgepodge of weapons work for display. This isn't an excuse.
6. I've never seen someone defend rules bloat before, so this is almost fascinating. Even people that liked the core of 7th felt there was a incredible amount of rules bloat. The more bloat there is, the more trouble GW has keeping up with balance.
You don't care about balance though, obviously. Anyone asking for extra points to run more weapons never did. Hard to take their opinion seriously on this matter, huh?
7. No, the story cannot work. My 20 point Space Marine example literally proves it.
8. Except Frag has ALWAYS been bad. Small blasts were bad, and random shots on a 20 point weapon are bad. Did you know you only kill like 2.5 more Gaunts using Frag instead of Krak with four ML? That's a really poor performing option that shouldn't exist. Consolidating the ML to Lascannon stats would give new life to models with the ML.
9. The fact you can defend Flamers hitting flyers and Plasma exploding more against someone sneaky speaks levels of denial of bad core mechanics. How far away do you think Flamers reach?
10. You miss the point of how inconsistent the stats are. For someone that supposedly cares deeply about the fluff, you should've caught that.
11. In fluff Eldar literally dodge bullets fired at them by simple humans. Once again, you'd think someone that cared so deeply about the fluff would understand the point rather than creating a poor justification to defend how busted the Orders mechanic becomes.
12. Why couldn't it? 40k certainly doesn't do what you want until you start throwing half-assed justifications in the wind.

That multimeltas and missile launchers are bad, is not an argument for their removal, they both have a distinct role which could work if the rules were improved a little bit. Both grav and plasma existing being redundant is much stronger case, as they really have very similar roles. It is interesting as grav is a late addition when they just desperately wanted to give people a reason to buy tactical and devastator kits again. Grav might logically apply some movement debuff (there are psychic powers that do that), then it would be distinct. Though it is questionable whether it is wise to give such fiddly rules for a relatively common weapon.

 Peregrine wrote:

I'm not arguing for minimizing model ranges. Cutting out rules bloat, however, does improve the game.

Take the Intercessor kit as an example - I think those drum mags look great but that modelling choice has a rules implication so I don't have any. Did we really need three different profiles for one gun with slightly different accessories? Removing two of those profiles and making the parts cosmetic would be an improvement, in my opinion.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:The pure denial is incredible here.
1. How many Grunts does it actually take to kill you in Halo though? Even on Legendary you need more than 6 of them, whereas two to three of anything else are more than a match for a Marine.

That depends if you're fighting back, or just standing there. Even if you're just standing there, it really shouldn't be possible for grunts to take down a Spartan, even if they're standing still. The very fact that Grunts can kill a Spartan with plasma pistols is lore-breaking.

2. "Flavor" is merely an opinion for that. Flavor comes from the fluff text of the weapon. If you only cared about fluff, having some options consolidated really shouldn't bother you.
Then again you ask for free points per other threads so I'm not shocked by anything.

Why do you presume to tell me what I *should* be bothered about in regards to the fluff? Are you some kind of fluff authority?
I am told that X weapon does X. If I play the game and it doesn't do at least an approximation of X, then it's not the same thing.*
*I say approximation - things like bolters are described as being incredibly powerful, but aren't on tabletop, however, they are more powerful than lasguns, so the approximate level of a bolter's strength is met.

4. Fake options aren't options, full stop. Even with the Skyhammer formation (the one that gave Drop Pod Devastators the Relentless rule when they disembarked), Multi-Melta wasn't a good option on Devastators.
So what would removing Multi-Meltas from Devastator squads do, just as an example? Absolutely nothing, because they were absolutely never the proper platform for that kind of weapon.

Just because it's not a strong option doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. If it's not a good option, then by all means, if you care about removing redundancies, make it good.

A weapon performing poorly is no reason for it not to exist. Make it cheaper, make it stronger, I don't care, as long as it exists on it's own merit.

5. The variety comes from the models themselves. Ork players certainly don't have as many weapon options and yet their dedicated fanbase makes their hodgepodge of weapons work for display. This isn't an excuse.

Because it's established in Ork lore that their weapons aren't uniform, unlike Imperial ones.

Lascannons and missile launchers have very different looks, and that also reflects in how they play.

6. I've never seen someone defend rules bloat before, so this is almost fascinating. Even people that liked the core of 7th felt there was a incredible amount of rules bloat. The more bloat there is, the more trouble GW has keeping up with balance.
You don't care about balance though, obviously. Anyone asking for extra points to run more weapons never did. Hard to take their opinion seriously on this matter, huh?

7th had rules bloat in how you had to reference through multiple books and entries. With 8th, all relevant data I need is on the unit's datasheet.

Can you also address the argument presented, instead of trying to attack something that isn't relevant to this one? We get it, you hate Power Level. Good for you. Moving on.

7. No, the story cannot work. My 20 point Space Marine example literally proves it.

Again, are you some kind of thought police? Can I not think the way I think now? Is your imagination and the limits of your suspension of disbelief the only one that matters now?

8. Except Frag has ALWAYS been bad. Small blasts were bad, and random shots on a 20 point weapon are bad. Did you know you only kill like 2.5 more Gaunts using Frag instead of Krak with four ML? That's a really poor performing option that shouldn't exist. Consolidating the ML to Lascannon stats would give new life to models with the ML.

Or, crazy thought, for all your talk of balancing - why don't you fix frag by buffing it or making missiles cheaper?

9. The fact you can defend Flamers hitting flyers and Plasma exploding more against someone sneaky speaks levels of denial of bad core mechanics. How far away do you think Flamers reach?

How low do you think 40k flyers fly? I don't know. You don't know. But on the instances where a flamer hits them, I assume that the flyer is very low to the ground.

10. You miss the point of how inconsistent the stats are. For someone that supposedly cares deeply about the fluff, you should've caught that.

No, I'm aware of that. However, while they're inconsistent in magnitude, you can't deny that a Space Marine is Tougher than a guardsman. It might not be orders of magnitude tougher, but they ARE fundamentally more durable.

11. In fluff Eldar literally dodge bullets fired at them by simple humans. Once again, you'd think someone that cared so deeply about the fluff would understand the point rather than creating a poor justification to defend how busted the Orders mechanic becomes.

In the fluff, people can do things based purely on faith.

In 40k, prayer is power, and therefore can be used to justify almost ANY inconsistencies with what "should" be possible.

12. Why couldn't it? 40k certainly doesn't do what you want until you start throwing half-assed justifications in the wind.

40k does what I want from it right now. I haven't got an issue. I don't need to justify why I enjoy it, beyond that I do, and I think the changes presented here would compromise that.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

I'm not arguing for minimizing model ranges. Cutting out rules bloat, however, does improve the game.

Take the Intercessor kit as an example - I think those drum mags look great but that modelling choice has a rules implication so I don't have any. Did we really need three different profiles for one gun with slightly different accessories? Removing two of those profiles and making the parts cosmetic would be an improvement, in my opinion.

Honestly I don't think people will notice, especially when you won't be mixing the different variants anyway. They're only ever run as standard Bolt Rifles, so I say go nuts with the models.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

I'm not arguing for minimizing model ranges. Cutting out rules bloat, however, does improve the game.

Take the Intercessor kit as an example - I think those drum mags look great but that modelling choice has a rules implication so I don't have any. Did we really need three different profiles for one gun with slightly different accessories? Removing two of those profiles and making the parts cosmetic would be an improvement, in my opinion.

I don't think the drum mag would be an issue, so long as you took the appropriate scope for the gun you wanted. Drum mag and stalker sight? I'll assume it's a stalker, and if you tell me otherwise, I'll be cool with it.

Hell, I don't think I'd mind you proxying. I just don't want the option taken away from me to play my plasma cannons AS plasma cannons, and not be forced to play them as lascannons because lascannons are attractive now.

 Crimson wrote:
That multimeltas and missile launchers are bad, is not an argument for their removal, they both have a distinct role which could work if the rules were improved a little bit. Both grav and plasma existing being redundant is much stronger case, as they really have very similar roles. It is interesting as grav is a late addition when they just desperately wanted to give people a reason to buy tactical and devastator kits again. Grav might logically apply some movement debuff (there are psychic powers that do that), then it would be distinct. Though it is questionable whether it is wise to give such fiddly rules for a relatively common weapon.

There's not a point to buff a TAC weapon though where it's not going to outshine other choices in some regard. It simply doesn't work and consolidation for the ML is necessary for the models to be useful.

I also wasn't talking about removing the Multi-Melta weapon but making an example of how it is not a choice for a particular unit (Devastators) in the most favorable conditions (Skyhammer Formation), even though it's an option. If it was removed from Devastators, nobody bats an eye because it wasn't taken regardless.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I don't think the drum mag would be an issue, so long as you took the appropriate scope for the gun you wanted. Drum mag and stalker sight? I'll assume it's a stalker, and if you tell me otherwise, I'll be cool with it.

Hell, I don't think I'd mind you proxying. I just don't want the option taken away from me to play my plasma cannons AS plasma cannons, and not be forced to play them as lascannons because lascannons are attractive now.

I think it's exactly the same thing - why not just combine the imperial heavy AT weapons into a single profile? Then you can have plasma cannons or lascannons entirely based on which you think looks best.

What does the game actually lose at that point and is the difference between them worth representing with different profiles?

This is like the WW2 games that insist on having different profiles for different versions of the Enfield/SMLE when in reality all of the bolt action infantry rifles in use were pretty much interchangeable.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:The pure denial is incredible here.
1. How many Grunts does it actually take to kill you in Halo though? Even on Legendary you need more than 6 of them, whereas two to three of anything else are more than a match for a Marine.

That depends if you're fighting back, or just standing there. Even if you're just standing there, it really shouldn't be possible for grunts to take down a Spartan, even if they're standing still. The very fact that Grunts can kill a Spartan with plasma pistols is lore-breaking.

2. "Flavor" is merely an opinion for that. Flavor comes from the fluff text of the weapon. If you only cared about fluff, having some options consolidated really shouldn't bother you.
Then again you ask for free points per other threads so I'm not shocked by anything.

Why do you presume to tell me what I *should* be bothered about in regards to the fluff? Are you some kind of fluff authority?
I am told that X weapon does X. If I play the game and it doesn't do at least an approximation of X, then it's not the same thing.*
*I say approximation - things like bolters are described as being incredibly powerful, but aren't on tabletop, however, they are more powerful than lasguns, so the approximate level of a bolter's strength is met.

4. Fake options aren't options, full stop. Even with the Skyhammer formation (the one that gave Drop Pod Devastators the Relentless rule when they disembarked), Multi-Melta wasn't a good option on Devastators.
So what would removing Multi-Meltas from Devastator squads do, just as an example? Absolutely nothing, because they were absolutely never the proper platform for that kind of weapon.

Just because it's not a strong option doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. If it's not a good option, then by all means, if you care about removing redundancies, make it good.

A weapon performing poorly is no reason for it not to exist. Make it cheaper, make it stronger, I don't care, as long as it exists on it's own merit.

5. The variety comes from the models themselves. Ork players certainly don't have as many weapon options and yet their dedicated fanbase makes their hodgepodge of weapons work for display. This isn't an excuse.

Because it's established in Ork lore that their weapons aren't uniform, unlike Imperial ones.

Lascannons and missile launchers have very different looks, and that also reflects in how they play.

6. I've never seen someone defend rules bloat before, so this is almost fascinating. Even people that liked the core of 7th felt there was a incredible amount of rules bloat. The more bloat there is, the more trouble GW has keeping up with balance.
You don't care about balance though, obviously. Anyone asking for extra points to run more weapons never did. Hard to take their opinion seriously on this matter, huh?

7th had rules bloat in how you had to reference through multiple books and entries. With 8th, all relevant data I need is on the unit's datasheet.

Can you also address the argument presented, instead of trying to attack something that isn't relevant to this one? We get it, you hate Power Level. Good for you. Moving on.

7. No, the story cannot work. My 20 point Space Marine example literally proves it.

Again, are you some kind of thought police? Can I not think the way I think now? Is your imagination and the limits of your suspension of disbelief the only one that matters now?

8. Except Frag has ALWAYS been bad. Small blasts were bad, and random shots on a 20 point weapon are bad. Did you know you only kill like 2.5 more Gaunts using Frag instead of Krak with four ML? That's a really poor performing option that shouldn't exist. Consolidating the ML to Lascannon stats would give new life to models with the ML.

Or, crazy thought, for all your talk of balancing - why don't you fix frag by buffing it or making missiles cheaper?

9. The fact you can defend Flamers hitting flyers and Plasma exploding more against someone sneaky speaks levels of denial of bad core mechanics. How far away do you think Flamers reach?

How low do you think 40k flyers fly? I don't know. You don't know. But on the instances where a flamer hits them, I assume that the flyer is very low to the ground.

10. You miss the point of how inconsistent the stats are. For someone that supposedly cares deeply about the fluff, you should've caught that.

No, I'm aware of that. However, while they're inconsistent in magnitude, you can't deny that a Space Marine is Tougher than a guardsman. It might not be orders of magnitude tougher, but they ARE fundamentally more durable.

11. In fluff Eldar literally dodge bullets fired at them by simple humans. Once again, you'd think someone that cared so deeply about the fluff would understand the point rather than creating a poor justification to defend how busted the Orders mechanic becomes.

In the fluff, people can do things based purely on faith.

In 40k, prayer is power, and therefore can be used to justify almost ANY inconsistencies with what "should" be possible.

12. Why couldn't it? 40k certainly doesn't do what you want until you start throwing half-assed justifications in the wind.

40k does what I want from it right now. I haven't got an issue. I don't need to justify why I enjoy it, beyond that I do, and I think the changes presented here would compromise that.

1. And look how long it takes for Grunts to kill Master Chief just standing there even in Legendary.
Your argument would work more if the system wasn't IGOUGO. Even another system doesn't work for the pathetic offense of a lot of units, actually. The math proves it.
Unless you want to deny the actual numbers, that is. In which case, might as well throw away the dice and just make the pewpew noises.
2. Funny. I'm told the ML launches a projectile and it really hurts the target. I'm told the Lascannon shoots a giant laser that really hurts the target. Seeing as Frag might as well not exist, consolidation for the ML Krak and LC shot works fine for being anti-tank weapons.
Well that was easy.
Also Bolters and Pulse rifles and such lost any armor penetrating power, so no they don't fit the lore now. Approximate strength is only met if you ignore the lore, which I thought you didn't do with your former complaint about how consolidating the ML and LC stats would be bad.
3. If something cannot be a proper platform even in the most favorable circumstances (Multi-Melta for Skyhammer Formation Devastators), the option might as well not exist. Same thing for 4 of the current ML performing less than 2 Lascannons and 2 Heavy Bolters against almost all targets. The 5 point cut to the ML still didn't help it. I suppose that they could maybe subtract 1 or 2 more points, but math is hard and it would be hard for someone to figure out if they went over in points and had to ask for permission to run more stuff.
4. Look at the Loota and Flash Gitz kits again, and say with a straight face all those weapons could perform the same.
That's not even a matter of being uniform. One of the Flash Gitz on the website has a darn Plasma Cannon!
5. Rules bloat doesn't just refer to how many books you carry and you know that.
Also your feelings towards the rest of the game are relevant as it establishes how you construct your beliefs. It's relevant and should be pointed out.
6. Then I want you, once again with a straight face, say that the current Tactical Marine is fine as is and should be 20 points for everything to fit the fluff more, and that this would be more fun.
7. Core mechanics made the small blast bad on top of the prohibitive cost of the ML, and I already pointed out how you didn't like anything not being a multiple of 5 which you demonstrated in a different thread. 18 point ML's would be too hard to add! Might have to ask for extra points from your opponent!
OR we can just admit that the ML has always been bad outside super specific instances (Long Fangs), and consolidate them into the Lascannon profile, ergo giving those models new life on the tabletop. Nobody uses the Frag profile anyway and the Flakk Strategem doesn't make for a good weapon, so nothing is missed. That's several problems solved in one go.
8. Based on the fact they have rules where they can't stop and have a hard to hit rule due to their speed and being REALLY high up in the air, it is safe to assume a 8" Flamer shouldn't be hitting it mechanically.
I also came up with that pathetic excuse for sneaky dudes making Plasma explode more. It isn't a good excuse though and needed to be rewritten to make more sense.
9. The Space Marine and Fire Warrior aren't tougher than a Guardsman due to points, so you're also just wrong on this account.
10. And on the tabletop units can due stuff due to faith. So why is that something properly represented but not Eldar dodging Lasguns?
11. As long as you're in denial and make excuses for their rules development team, sure you can get all you want out of the game. You're stopping the game from actually growing though.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I don't think the drum mag would be an issue, so long as you took the appropriate scope for the gun you wanted. Drum mag and stalker sight? I'll assume it's a stalker, and if you tell me otherwise, I'll be cool with it.

Hell, I don't think I'd mind you proxying. I just don't want the option taken away from me to play my plasma cannons AS plasma cannons, and not be forced to play them as lascannons because lascannons are attractive now.

I think it's exactly the same thing - why not just combine the imperial heavy AT weapons into a single profile? Then you can have plasma cannons or lascannons entirely based on which you think looks best.

What does the game actually lose at that point and is the difference between them worth representing with different profiles?

This is like the WW2 games that insist on having different profiles for different versions of the Enfield/SMLE when in reality all of the bolt action infantry rifles in use were pretty much interchangeable.

Because neither a Plasma Cannon nor a Missile Launcher is an AT Weapon?

A Plasma Cannon is a heavy infantry killer, a Missile launcher is a multi role weapon - Presently it doesn't do terribly well at it's secondary role, but it's not meant to. It's meant to be worse than a heavy bolter at infantry, and worse than a lascannon against tanks, which it's stats perfectly mimic. A missile launcher can kill six, yes _Six_ Genestealers in one shot. A Lascannon can kill one. Is it likely? No. But in a situation where I'd like to kill six genestealers in a turn, I know which weapon I'd rather have. Incidentally, it also gives you access to the Flakk missile, something else a Lascannon does not do.

And if you're using Plasma Cannons as your primary Anti-Tank, you're doing it wrong. Even if you're a Dark Angel. That isn't their intended role, and consolodating their profiles is madness.

Just how stripped down do you want this game? Should we merge all the Space Marine Units down, so the entire Codex consists of Generic Marines, Generic HQ Choice, Generic Walker, Generic Transport, and Generic Tank? Each armed with Generic Small Arms or Generic AT?

I've had my moments of frustration with what GW does with their rules set at times. [Flamers hitting flyers and exploding plasmaguns at night being key examples] but I can't imagine doing anything other than closing such a bland book in disgust.
40k lives and dies on it's _Character_ alone. Removing that from the game leaves and empty shell that can, and should be filled by anything _anything_ else. GW writers write awful, awful rules, and they're pretty bad at balence. But they can write character. Take that out the game, and this really is just a terrible sad mess propped up by some occasionally stunning models, and the will and the skill that some people chose to put into painting them.

There is a balance required though - at the moment lots of options for character are essentially eliminated via being drastically worse than other options. Consolidating the crunch opens up modelling options.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I don't think the drum mag would be an issue, so long as you took the appropriate scope for the gun you wanted. Drum mag and stalker sight? I'll assume it's a stalker, and if you tell me otherwise, I'll be cool with it.

Hell, I don't think I'd mind you proxying. I just don't want the option taken away from me to play my plasma cannons AS plasma cannons, and not be forced to play them as lascannons because lascannons are attractive now.

I think it's exactly the same thing - why not just combine the imperial heavy AT weapons into a single profile? Then you can have plasma cannons or lascannons entirely based on which you think looks best.

What does the game actually lose at that point and is the difference between them worth representing with different profiles?

This is like the WW2 games that insist on having different profiles for different versions of the Enfield/SMLE when in reality all of the bolt action infantry rifles in use were pretty much interchangeable.

Because neither a Plasma Cannon nor a Missile Launcher is an AT Weapon?

A Plasma Cannon is a heavy infantry killer, a Missile launcher is a multi role weapon - Presently it doesn't do terribly well at it's secondary role, but it's not meant to. It's meant to be worse than a heavy bolter at infantry, and worse than a lascannon against tanks, which it's stats perfectly mimic. A missile launcher can kill six, yes _Six_ Genestealers in one shot. A Lascannon can kill one. Is it likely? No. But in a situation where I'd like to kill six genestealers in a turn, I know which weapon I'd rather have. Incidentally, it also gives you access to the Flakk missile, something else a Lascannon does not do.

And if you're using Plasma Cannons as your primary Anti-Tank, you're doing it wrong. Even if you're a Dark Angel. That isn't their intended role, and consolodating their profiles is madness.

Just how stripped down do you want this game? Should we merge all the Space Marine Units down, so the entire Codex consists of Generic Marines, Generic HQ Choice, Generic Walker, Generic Transport, and Generic Tank? Each armed with Generic Small Arms or Generic AT?

I've had my moments of frustration with what GW does with their rules set at times. [Flamers hitting flyers and exploding plasmaguns at night being key examples] but I can't imagine doing anything other than closing such a bland book in disgust.
40k lives and dies on it's _Character_ alone. Removing that from the game leaves and empty shell that can, and should be filled by anything _anything_ else. GW writers write awful, awful rules, and they're pretty bad at balence. But they can write character. Take that out the game, and this really is just a terrible sad mess propped up by some occasionally stunning models, and the will and the skill that some people chose to put into painting them.

Honestly I'll all for for consolidation of a lot of the Marine codices (the Angels, Renegades, Vanilla) into the same codex for easier balance. Heck, I'm looking for ways to do the same for Space Wolves too (a much more gargantuan task but likely more rewarding).