Switch Theme:

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


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




Made in us
Terrifying Doombull




This is especially an obstacle as the standard game size keeps being driven up; new players just can't get into it.

But... game size went down. Points per model went up, and all the free crap from 7th went away.
???

And, going back even further. Larger game sizes (like 1850 or 2000) came entirely from the player base. GW played and tested and did battle reports at 1500 for a LONG time, and had to be forced to cave into demands for events at higher points values.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/24 01:25:07


Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

Voss wrote:
This is especially an obstacle as the standard game size keeps being driven up; new players just can't get into it.

But... game size went down. Points per model went up, and all the free crap from 7th went away.
???

And, going back even further. Larger game sizes (like 1850 or 2000) came entirely from the player base. GW played and tested and did battle reports at 1500 for a LONG time, and had to be forced to cave into demands for events at higher points values.


If you're only comparing against 8th (or 7th's formations), then sure, points have gone up. Go back farther. My 2000pt Tyranid army from 3rd clocked in at 1300-1400pts in 9th (before the new codex), and since the recommended game size has gone up from 1500 to 2000 as well, that means what used to be a large army in 3rd is now only 2/3 of the way to a standard game in 9th.

GW's writing the rules, not the players. If people want to do 2K games in a system written and intended for 1500 then that's on them, but as soon as GW starts writing rules around 2000pt games, now it's their responsibility.

And that's not even getting into price rises outpacing inflation, let alone actual buying power of the average consumer, which make any given points level more of a financial commitment to achieve even without changes to the game size.

I will acknowledge that GW has done more than ever to make smaller games feel viable, with explicit rules support for 500pt and 1000pt games, but I don't feel the game system works satisfactorily at those levels and the balance is far too easy to break.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/05/24 01:59:16


   
Made in us
Terrifying Doombull




 catbarf wrote:
Voss wrote:
This is especially an obstacle as the standard game size keeps being driven up; new players just can't get into it.

But... game size went down. Points per model went up, and all the free crap from 7th went away.
???

And, going back even further. Larger game sizes (like 1850 or 2000) came entirely from the player base. GW played and tested and did battle reports at 1500 for a LONG time, and had to be forced to cave into demands for events at higher points values.


If you're only comparing against 8th (or 7th's formations), then sure, points have gone up. Go back farther. My 2000pt Tyranid army from 3rd clocked in at 1300-1400pts in 9th (before the new codex), and since the recommended game size has gone up from 1500 to 2000 as well, that means what used to be a large army in 3rd is now only 2/3 of the way to a standard game in 9th.

That doesn't seem right to me, or at least, seems really exceptional and unusual. The 5th or 6th edition codex has 14 pt tactical marines vs 18 pts now. Vehicles are about 30 points more as well. I'd have to dig for older books, but with the exception of 2nd (which had significantly higher point costs), I remember much lower point values than now (and thus, more stuff).


GW's writing the rules, not the players. If people want to do 2K games in a system written and intended for 1500 then that's on them, but as soon as GW starts writing rules around 2000pt games, now it's their responsibility.

Yeah, except they 'wrote rules' for 2000 and even 3000 point games from the beginning. I'm not sure why its an issue 'now.'


And that's not even getting into price rises outpacing inflation, let alone actual buying power of the average consumer, which make any given points level more of a financial commitment to achieve even without changes to the game size.

Yeah, not touching whoever the 'average consumer' is supposed to be.

I will acknowledge that GW has done more than ever to make smaller games feel viable, with explicit rules support for 500pt and 1000pt games, but I don't feel the game system works satisfactorily at those levels and the balance is far too easy to break.
I feel that's true (and has always been true) for smaller and bigger games, so... whatever. Breaking the game is even easier with bigger game sizes, which is why I hated people lobbying for 2000 points as standard back all those editions ago.

Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







Yeah, I am all for older editions but my 2000 point guard army in 4th is almost identical to my 2000 point guard army in 9th. I would say within 5-10%. I built the same army for both editions.

My daemons get fewer models in 4th but the army design was fundamentally different back then as well....

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/24 03:31:35


 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
While it's possible to have kits like the Heavy Weapons Squad or the new Sisters of Battle kit, when there are a lot of models with a lot of options to include, this isn't entirely feasible.
That which is presented without evidence...

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

 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






 catbarf wrote:
Voss wrote:
This is especially an obstacle as the standard game size keeps being driven up; new players just can't get into it.

But... game size went down. Points per model went up, and all the free crap from 7th went away.
???

And, going back even further. Larger game sizes (like 1850 or 2000) came entirely from the player base. GW played and tested and did battle reports at 1500 for a LONG time, and had to be forced to cave into demands for events at higher points values.


If you're only comparing against 8th (or 7th's formations), then sure, points have gone up. Go back farther. My 2000pt Tyranid army from 3rd clocked in at 1300-1400pts in 9th (before the new codex), and since the recommended game size has gone up from 1500 to 2000 as well, that means what used to be a large army in 3rd is now only 2/3 of the way to a standard game in 9th.
The original quote "keeps being driven up" means it is something that is still happening, so comparisons to 20 years ago are more or less irrelevant to the point he is making. (Though I do agree that game size now is notably greater than game size in 3rd.)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/24 04:34:12


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

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

I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

 catbarf wrote:


If you're only comparing against 8th (or 7th's formations), then sure, points have gone up. Go back farther. My 2000pt Tyranid army from 3rd clocked in at 1300-1400pts in 9th (before the new codex), and since the recommended game size has gone up from 1500 to 2000 as well, that means what used to be a large army in 3rd is now only 2/3 of the way to a standard game in 9th.


There's no such thing as "recommended game size", that's entirely of the players' will. If it's too high, players are to blame. I for example still strongly prefer the 1500 points format and constantly ask my community (with terrible results) to play that game size.

And about the size of the army it really depends on the factions. I still keep all the lists I've played since 3rd and 1500 points Orks and Space Wolves lists that I played in 3rd or 5th are about the same size, in terms of models, than 2000 points ones in 9th using the same factions (of course not the same lists). 2000 points armies in 3rd or 5th could easily be much larger than those we have now.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/24 06:33:33


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
I'm thinking particularly in terms of the plague marines weapon entry, or the restriction in Skitarii squads to only having one of each special weapon. It's just... un-fun, at least to me.


This is a no-win scenario.

People complained for ages about kits not having all the options or enough options and having to buy multiple copies of the kit to get all the options.
People complained when the options are what is in the kit.

While it's possible to have kits like the Heavy Weapons Squad or the new Sisters of Battle kit, when there are a lot of models with a lot of options to include, this isn't entirely feasible.


There are so many solutions to this problem, I'm not sure how you can say it's a no-win scenario.

Some solutions involve big changes to the game, such as altering weapon profiles and even removing/consolidating redundant options, so aren't very practical.

Others would work, however. We're seeing one approach in HH, where weapon upgrade sprues are released separately. You'd probably need 3-4 per faction at the most to cover almost everything for 40k, though it would require a change to how the kits are designed in some cases since the new designs often marry specific weapons with specific body/arm combos. That doesn't seem like an insurmountable problem. If we accept that adding such a sprue to every kit is not desirable as it would increase the cost of every individual unit, then we end up with a situation that's as close to win-win as you can get: customers get the option to purchase upgrade boxes to get exactly what they want and GW gets to sell more stuff rather than lose out to companies like Kromlech who provide that sort of service already.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Certain armies have definitely got cheaper as their units fell down the power order - but others have not really.

I don't think my 9th edition DE would weigh in at dramatically lower points than in say 3rd or 5th edition. Incubi (25 points) and Reavers (30 points) seem a bit on the nose - but then raiders are only 55 points base. Ravagers are 25 points cheaper. Talos are much the same at 100 points. Kabalites are the same at 8 (9 in 5th). Wyches down at 10 (although only after they were nerfed to 12 in 9th). Mandrakes are the same. Grotesques are a lot cheaper - but the 3rd edition unit was a kind of a halfway house between todays grotesques and wracks. If we look at 5th Grots were 35 points and Wracks were 10 - which is much of a muchness.
   
Made in gb
Mighty Brass Scorpion of Khorne




Tyel wrote:
Certain armies have definitely got cheaper as their units fell down the power order - but others have not really.

I don't think my 9th edition DE would weigh in at dramatically lower points than in say 3rd or 5th edition. Incubi (25 points) and Reavers (30 points) seem a bit on the nose - but then raiders are only 55 points base. Ravagers are 25 points cheaper. Talos are much the same at 100 points. Kabalites are the same at 8 (9 in 5th). Wyches down at 10 (although only after they were nerfed to 12 in 9th). Mandrakes are the same. Grotesques are a lot cheaper - but the 3rd edition unit was a kind of a halfway house between todays grotesques and wracks. If we look at 5th Grots were 35 points and Wracks were 10 - which is much of a muchness.


Cheaper or otherwise, the game got bigger. For many I think the general premise was that a 1500 army in the old system would end up at 2k in the new one given that was GW's "standard" army size, but instead the extra 500 points was to allow for the greater granularity.

Instead we still have squished points costs leaving stuff without the room to define itself in a role and just more stuff on the table, each with the same problem. I'd rather have 25% less army and instead have units with room to be expressed and pointed correctly.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/24 08:56:41


 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

The models became bigger, not the game. Now we have massive infantries, massive vehicles, massive herores and even more massive super heroes that are the size of a child.

For the majority of armies a 2000 points in 3rd required way many models than a 2000 points one in 9th for the same army. In my old ork codex for example the most expensive model was the battlewagon, capped at 0-1, which was 120-140 points depending on the upgrades.

 
   
Made in de
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle




Slipspace wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
I'm thinking particularly in terms of the plague marines weapon entry, or the restriction in Skitarii squads to only having one of each special weapon. It's just... un-fun, at least to me.


This is a no-win scenario.

People complained for ages about kits not having all the options or enough options and having to buy multiple copies of the kit to get all the options.
People complained when the options are what is in the kit.

While it's possible to have kits like the Heavy Weapons Squad or the new Sisters of Battle kit, when there are a lot of models with a lot of options to include, this isn't entirely feasible.


There are so many solutions to this problem, I'm not sure how you can say it's a no-win scenario.

Some solutions involve big changes to the game, such as altering weapon profiles and even removing/consolidating redundant options, so aren't very practical.

Others would work, however. We're seeing one approach in HH, where weapon upgrade sprues are released separately. You'd probably need 3-4 per faction at the most to cover almost everything for 40k, though it would require a change to how the kits are designed in some cases since the new designs often marry specific weapons with specific body/arm combos. That doesn't seem like an insurmountable problem. If we accept that adding such a sprue to every kit is not desirable as it would increase the cost of every individual unit, then we end up with a situation that's as close to win-win as you can get: customers get the option to purchase upgrade boxes to get exactly what they want and GW gets to sell more stuff rather than lose out to companies like Kromlech who provide that sort of service already.


Agreed, I'd say there are solutions, in 9th GW decided to take the worst one.
The old solution of not providing kits with all the options but leaving it to the players if they want to get them worked for 30 years, but I'd be open to the HH approach as well as to consolidated weapon rules like Harlequins got them. Yes, you lose some flavor on the way but honestly with the scale the game is at (and I don't want to add whether it has increased during the last 15 years or not) it'd be okay to mesh some weapons together. According to some the game was smaller in 3rd - 5th, yet power weapons were mostly the same aside from fists and claws. If it was possible for a smaller game it's possible in a game where giant Robots and Bombers are a common sight.

For Plague marines specifically?
one handed plague weapon (knive/ axe/ mace) for everyone
two one handed plague weapons (two of knives/axes/ mace with a combination you like, exchange bolter, get +1 attack, possible with every marine)
a two handed plague weapon (= cleaver, flail, exchange bolter, get strong weapon profile, possible with 2/squad)

What would you lose? Right now Bubonic axes are power weapons and would become weaker, maces as well. Flails and Cleaver become the same, you may keep the flail strat (that already works for cleavers, too...)
What would you get? Ability to throw whatever weapon you want on your Plague marines. You like those maces, your warband is the Corrosive Maces of Nurgle? Cool, equip all your marines with maces!
Easy resolution of Plague Marines' CC attacks.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/24 09:35:32


 
   
Made in fi
5th God of Chaos (O'rly?)





Dudeface wrote:
Tyel wrote:
Certain armies have definitely got cheaper as their units fell down the power order - but others have not really.

I don't think my 9th edition DE would weigh in at dramatically lower points than in say 3rd or 5th edition. Incubi (25 points) and Reavers (30 points) seem a bit on the nose - but then raiders are only 55 points base. Ravagers are 25 points cheaper. Talos are much the same at 100 points. Kabalites are the same at 8 (9 in 5th). Wyches down at 10 (although only after they were nerfed to 12 in 9th). Mandrakes are the same. Grotesques are a lot cheaper - but the 3rd edition unit was a kind of a halfway house between todays grotesques and wracks. If we look at 5th Grots were 35 points and Wracks were 10 - which is much of a muchness.


Cheaper or otherwise, the game got bigger. For many I think the general premise was that a 1500 army in the old system would end up at 2k in the new one given that was GW's "standard" army size, but instead the extra 500 points was to allow for the greater granularity.

Instead we still have squished points costs leaving stuff without the room to define itself in a role and just more stuff on the table, each with the same problem. I'd rather have 25% less army and instead have units with room to be expressed and pointed correctly.


8e indexes had big point increases across the board(vehicles in particular) so suddenly people couldn't field old armies. Players upped the events to 2k to play with same toys.

Come the codexes points were decreased.

2022 painted/bought: 307/419 
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter





 Blackie wrote:
 catbarf wrote:


If you're only comparing against 8th (or 7th's formations), then sure, points have gone up. Go back farther. My 2000pt Tyranid army from 3rd clocked in at 1300-1400pts in 9th (before the new codex), and since the recommended game size has gone up from 1500 to 2000 as well, that means what used to be a large army in 3rd is now only 2/3 of the way to a standard game in 9th.


There's no such thing as "recommended game size", that's entirely of the players' will. If it's too high, players are to blame. I for example still strongly prefer the 1500 points format and constantly ask my community (with terrible results) to play that game size.

And about the size of the army it really depends on the factions. I still keep all the lists I've played since 3rd and 1500 points Orks and Space Wolves lists that I played in 3rd or 5th are about the same size, in terms of models, than 2000 points ones in 9th using the same factions (of course not the same lists). 2000 points armies in 3rd or 5th could easily be much larger than those we have now.


Just because the players are to blame doesn't make it not a problem.

I remember playing at 1500 as the standard size when I started out, which then increased to 1850, and now to 2000. A 2000 point game was considered abnormally large game when I started out. For IG at least, which is what I played then, models are around the same cost points wise, so the army has definitely become larger.

I understand where the desire to increase the game size as the established pool of players collects more models comes from, because we want to see all our collections on the board, but the average start-up cost, coupled with a frequent lack of willingness to play down at 500 or 1000 points makes entering the hobby difficult for new players. Particularly for high school aged kids, which the hobby as a whole needs to survive long-term.
Being an ass about unpainted models and "not enjoying the hobby in the same way you do" further doesn't help, and will drive people away.



Also, all things considered I actually think less weapon discretization could help quite a bit. We don't really need power axes, swords, and maces with different stats. "Power Weapon" will do just fine for the vast majority of pointy stick with AP that a squad leader carries. Considering that I almost never see anyone actually be that WYSIWYG about the power weapon the squad leader has...

Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades! 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Also, all things considered I actually think less weapon discretization could help quite a bit. We don't really need power axes, swords, and maces with different stats. "Power Weapon" will do just fine for the vast majority of pointy stick with AP that a squad leader carries. Considering that I almost never see anyone actually be that WYSIWYG about the power weapon the squad leader has...
Completely agreed, that is among the few things I really like about the upcoming CSM codex.

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

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

I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 NinthMusketeer wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Also, all things considered I actually think less weapon discretization could help quite a bit. We don't really need power axes, swords, and maces with different stats. "Power Weapon" will do just fine for the vast majority of pointy stick with AP that a squad leader carries. Considering that I almost never see anyone actually be that WYSIWYG about the power weapon the squad leader has...
Completely agreed, that is among the few things I really like about the upcoming CSM codex.


Harlequin Troupes were also designed this way. IMO it's one of the good changes with their 9e update.
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Who cares about "need". What if we want that? What if we want different weapons to do different things?

What if we spent years and years with generic weapons, only to have them finally brought back and expanded upon, only to have them ripped away again?

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

 
   
Made in gb
Assassin with Black Lotus Poison





Bristol

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Who cares about "need". What if we want that? What if we want different weapons to do different things?

What if we spent years and years with generic weapons, only to have them finally brought back and expanded upon, only to have them ripped away again?


For the same reason you don't roll to see if each guardsman recharged their las pack in a fire rather than plugging it into a charging station when they are shooting. The same reason we don't sit down with a pad of paper to calculate the trajectory of each round fired. It is a game and some things are best abstracted to make the game function.

A game the size of 40k, with the model counts of 40k, should not care about the difference between an axe or a sword.

If it were a computer game, where such differences can be handled completely by the engine in the blink of an eye? Sure, knock yourself out, dealing with numbers is what computers are for. But when each "calculation" in the game involves a human rolling physical dice, sometimes multiple times at each step, the game should endeavour to streamline that process so it is fluid and quick.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/25 00:21:10


The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.

Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







I liked the old 4th edition Power Weapon, generic.

Modern 40k has weird gak like:
"The 77th Garellan Shock Assault Killer Murderer Regiment uses swords predominantly."
"The 1st Zentrian Bicycle Couriers use rolled-up newspaper power mauls."

"Ah so the 1st Zentrian is better in close combat because Mauls are considerably better against every target type ever than swords."

Or whatever it is now. That was how it was in 8th.
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Who cares about "need". What if we want that? What if we want different weapons to do different things?

What if we spent years and years with generic weapons, only to have them finally brought back and expanded upon, only to have them ripped away again?


Different weapons are good. A plethora of samey weapons isn't.

Take SM: they could easily just have chainswords, power weapons and power fists/hammers in as close combat weapons. Three profiles in total.

What's the point of having something like Power Sword/Axe/Maul, Crozium Arcanum and Lightning Claw or Force Sword/Axe/Stave which all do exactly the same thing? Or to have Power Fist, Chainfist and Thunder Hammer which also do the exact same thing? There's no differentiation between those weapons, just one of each has better averages and gets the edge over its counterparts. Same for all the special wych cult melee weapons for example, which are 4-5 almost identical weapons.

 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Who cares about "need". What if we want that? What if we want different weapons to do different things?

What if we spent years and years with generic weapons, only to have them finally brought back and expanded upon, only to have them ripped away again?


Good game design involves figuring out the balance between "want" and "need". In a game involving supersonic aircraft and Knights that can lay waste to entire squads with a single weapon, or champions of legend and infamy like Guilliman and Abaddon, who massacre swathes of enemies with each sweep of their swords, where we can call down orbital bombardments from our fleets, it seems absurd that we also want to track the exact type of close combat weapon an IG sergeant is carrying, or whether the stealthy Space Marine squad has an Occulus Bolt Carbine, or a Marksman's Bolt Carbine.

3rd edition close combat weapons for SM (and pretty much everyone else) were basically, regular CC weapon, power weapon and heavy power weapon, with lightning claws getting a special rule to also differentiate them. That was it. And it worked fine, just as only having one bolter profile worked fine. You still had the model's A, S and WS stats to differentiate their abilities on top of what they were equipped with.
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Who cares about "need". What if we want that? What if we want different weapons to do different things?

What if we spent years and years with generic weapons, only to have them finally brought back and expanded upon, only to have them ripped away again?
It's about moderation. Too far to either extreme is bad. Combat weapon, chainblade, 2H chainblade, power weapon, force weapon, lightning claws, power fist, and thunder hammers provide a nice basis for diverse melee loadouts with room for some specialist options on certain units/characters.

Pushing the list up to combat weapon, different combat weapon, spooky weapon, chainblade, 2H chainblade, power sword, power axe, power maul, force sword, force stave, lightning claws, different lightning claws, power fist, chainfist, thunder hammer is where I see it as bloat.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/25 08:15:28


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

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

I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




I tend to agree. Very much lean towards not giving everything its own bespoke profile* - necromunda is very much bogged down by a whole plethora of 'strong melee weapon that does something slightly and pointlessly different to every other strong melee weapon when you roll a 6'. We just homebrewed it to the weapons profiles in 40k 3rd and 4th ed. Aa an added bonus it allows a bit more creativity in modelling. If everything is a power weapon go nuts.

* Though it did always bother me that a chainsword was 'the same' as a guy swinging his boot as both were generic ccws.

greatest band in the universe: machine supremacy

"Punch your fist in the air and hold your Gameboy aloft like the warrior you are" 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






I agree with the posts above, there is a sweet spot between

For example daemonic plague blade, Bubotnic Axes and Baleswords don't really need be different profiles as they are so close in function that they could just summarized as generic plague weapon upgrade.

Greater Plague Cleaver and Plague Flail are both unique two-handed weapons, one for smashing big stuff, one for sweeping through chaff. They both serve a purpose and should not remain as they are.

Splitting the generic "power weapons" and "power fist" profiles into unique profiles seemed like a great idea at the time, four editions later we know that there is always one "best" power weapon and all the others variants don't matter.

I present you, the the most misquoted part of all 40k lore:
Genetor Lukas Anzion in Codex Orks, 3rd edition wrote:[...] To the Ork, the only conceivable explanation for this is that the vehicle travels faster because it is red. However, as disturbing as it sounds, these 'facts' become true. Red Ork vehicles do travel perceptibly faster than those of other colors, even when all other design aspects are nominally the same. Similarly, many captured Ork weapons and items of equipment should not work, and indeed do not work unless wielded by an Ork. I believe this is linked to the strong psychic aura surrounding all Orkoids and have developed the Anzion Theorem of Orkoid Mechamorphic Resonant Kinetics. I theorise that many Ork inventions work because the Orks themselves think that they should work. The strong telekinetic abilities of the Ork's subconscious somehow ensures that the machinery or weaponry functions as desired.

This is literally all GW ever wrote on this topic - everything else is meme knowledge 
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




 Jidmah wrote:

Splitting the generic "power weapons" and "power fist" profiles into unique profiles seemed like a great idea at the time, four editions later we know that there is always one "best" power weapon and all the others variants don't matter.

Meanwhile in the opposit land of GK, every melee weapon is different and most are good and have their roles, aside for the cursed falchions which were the better then everything else option in prior editions and now are just bad.


The problem with weapons for w40k units, is that there are too many different types. It is the wierd "only what is in the box" change in 9th and how many units some armies run or have to run to be efficient. If the game didn't force people in to playing 3 or more identical units and 3 to 9 idential light vehicles, the feeling would be less prominent.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus






Hecaton wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Also, all things considered I actually think less weapon discretization could help quite a bit. We don't really need power axes, swords, and maces with different stats. "Power Weapon" will do just fine for the vast majority of pointy stick with AP that a squad leader carries. Considering that I almost never see anyone actually be that WYSIWYG about the power weapon the squad leader has...
Completely agreed, that is among the few things I really like about the upcoming CSM codex.


Harlequin Troupes were also designed this way. IMO it's one of the good changes with their 9e update.


Sadly each weapon still gives a unique keyword, it really shouldve been 3 strats that all clowns had access to at all times tbh
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

 Blackie wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Who cares about "need". What if we want that? What if we want different weapons to do different things?

What if we spent years and years with generic weapons, only to have them finally brought back and expanded upon, only to have them ripped away again?


Different weapons are good. A plethora of samey weapons isn't.

Take SM: they could easily just have chainswords, power weapons and power fists/hammers in as close combat weapons. Three profiles in total.

What's the point of having something like Power Sword/Axe/Maul, Crozium Arcanum and Lightning Claw or Force Sword/Axe/Stave which all do exactly the same thing? Or to have Power Fist, Chainfist and Thunder Hammer which also do the exact same thing? There's no differentiation between those weapons, just one of each has better averages and gets the edge over its counterparts. Same for all the special wych cult melee weapons for example, which are 4-5 almost identical weapons.


I agree with what you're saying here but it's also the opposite of the current reality.

What we see currently is stuff like Harlequin weapons (which, in terms of fluff, have some of the most unusual and esoteric effects in the game) being consolidated into a single profile, whilst SMs still have 20 different varieties of power weapons and 50 different varieties of bolters.

I think it's fair to question whether the current consolidation is really happening in the most necessary places.

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

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


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

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


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


 insaniak wrote:

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

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus






 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Who cares about "need". What if we want that? What if we want different weapons to do different things?

What if we spent years and years with generic weapons, only to have them finally brought back and expanded upon, only to have them ripped away again?


Going back to the BlightLords/Plague Marine example :

I dont want every weapon to have its own stat, i want the squad to be enjoyable to play when resolving attacks.

Let's imagine these dudes got the same treatment as BL/PM


When in combat, this means i need to resolve all of these weapons :
Unarmed
Power axe
Lightning claw
Power fist
Power maul

Thats 5 different dice pools i need to add to a game that is already a slog of dice rolling, hard skip.

Is there really a meaningful difference between :
S6 -2 1
S7 -1 1
S5 -3 1

wouldnt you rather just be able to take whichever option is fluffy visually rather than just take power fists because its the one with the better stats?
I know i would personally love to be able to take ANY power weapon i like visually, which is why i think the rumored "Accursed weapons" is a much better approach.

(give me power tridents/spear/glaive/halberd/katana! )



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 vipoid wrote:

I agree with what you're saying here but it's also the opposite of the current reality.

What we see currently is stuff like Harlequin weapons (which, in terms of fluff, have some of the most unusual and esoteric effects in the game) being consolidated into a single profile, whilst SMs still have 20 different varieties of power weapons and 50 different varieties of bolters.

I think it's fair to question whether the current consolidation is really happening in the most necessary places.


Harlequin consolidation was a good move (they shouldve removed the keyword part tho). every faction should have a much more limited wargear list . right now its just too much.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/05/25 13:19:04


 
   
Made in gb
Mighty Brass Scorpion of Khorne




 Jidmah wrote:
I agree with the posts above, there is a sweet spot between

For example daemonic plague blade, Bubotnic Axes and Baleswords don't really need be different profiles as they are so close in function that they could just summarized as generic plague weapon upgrade.

Greater Plague Cleaver and Plague Flail are both unique two-handed weapons, one for smashing big stuff, one for sweeping through chaff. They both serve a purpose and should not remain as they are.

Splitting the generic "power weapons" and "power fist" profiles into unique profiles seemed like a great idea at the time, four editions later we know that there is always one "best" power weapon and all the others variants don't matter.


I agree but inevitably someone will wade in with a comment about how it's because gw can't balance anything rather than just accepting it's impossible to not have a "best" weapon in the power weapon realm.
   
Made in us
Furious Fire Dragon





You're all ignoring Vipoid's point though. Like, again, consolidation makes sense when you have 50 different weapon types and 1 group of 5 do something very similar but slightly different, another group of 5 do something very similar but slightly different... and so on. Okay, consolidate that into 10 weapons. Harlequins have 6 *kits*.

When you homogenize their loadouts, you are causing a much greater reduction in terms of variety, but you also create no small amount of resentment from people like me who have been playing Harlequins as a standalone army since I got the ability to do so in 7th. In 7th, Harlequins were not OP, in fact, you could say they weren't even good, but they had a wealth of special, interesting rules that made them feel fluffy and fun. Then, GW turned all their weapons into boring power weapons in 8th (bad), and then completely consolidated them in 9th (worse).

I'm not against consolidation (for example, I'm a fan of the CSM change), but doing it to these already small and unsupported factions is really gakky.

   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: