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.

There's nothing wrong with some flavor, but there is such a thing as adding too much. For example, we have FOUR separate entries for Terminator units. We don't need that many rules for them. A single entry with all the weapons and just allowing mix/match takes up MUCH less space and gets through the hurdle of "why won't a Chapter field a squad of 3 of each armor if that's all they have available?"

 vipoid wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Or you could do what the 3.5 edition Imperial Guard codex did (and what 30k does for its Imperial militia) and make faction rules cost points. That way, some factions can be better than others (like Cadians > generic, to steal an example from the old Imperial Guard book) but not actually be better on the tabletop so things can be balanced.

I'm not necessarily opposed to this, but how would you work it?

Does each individual model and upgrade cost more/less points depending on your chosen subfaction?

The way it worked in 4th (for several factions, not just Guard) was that each upgrade had a per-model cost. Guard paid 2 points per model (over a 6pt base cost) to upgrade to a 4+ save, or Marines paid 3 points per model to get the Furious Assault rule.

As in the current system, taking traits that benefitted melee made melee weapons more valuable, but because there was a cost associated with it, you hit diminishing returns very quickly if you loaded up on faction traits and then also loaded up on wargear. You could also choose not to buy Furious Assault for your Devastators, and thus not be indirectly penalized for taking units that don't explicitly play to the subfaction rules.

Putting points costs on these things also made it a lot easier to balance than having free subfaction traits, of which usually 1-3 are clear winners.

 vipoid wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Or you could do what the 3.5 edition Imperial Guard codex did (and what 30k does for its Imperial militia) and make faction rules cost points. That way, some factions can be better than others (like Cadians > generic, to steal an example from the old Imperial Guard book) but not actually be better on the tabletop so things can be balanced.

I'm not necessarily opposed to this, but how would you work it?

Does each individual model and upgrade cost more/less points depending on your chosen subfaction?

In 30k, it works from the following:
"You get 2 choices from the following:"
~ability A~: [tiny bonus]. For plus 20 points per unit, a unit with Ability A can choose [cool, big bonus].
~Ability B~: [tiny bonus] For plus 10 points per unit, a unit with Ability B can choose [cool bonus]
~Ability C~: [tiny bonus] For 3 points per model, any unit with Ability C can [bonus that scales with unit size]

In old 40k:
"You get 5 doctrine points. Taking any doctrine points locks you out of certain specialists (e.g. Techpriest Enginseers, Vanquisher tanks, etc), and you must spend doctrine points to buy them back."
~Doctrine A~: For +x points per unit, they gain [thing]. May not be taken alongside Doctrine C.
~Doctrine B~: Units gain access to [option that costs points, e.g. dedicated transport] that they previously did not have access to.
~Doctrine C~: Army is built differently in X good way (e.g. stormtroopers are now troops choices) but are limited in Y bad way (can only take up to 3 troops choices, instead of 6)

A.T. wrote:

 Super Ready wrote:
OP - it sounds like you'd have really enjoyed the 3rd ed to 5th ed era.

3e probably isn't the best example, it started simple but by the end of it you were starting to see vast wargear tables and all kinds of trade-off upgrades and variants down to individual point differences for taking particular upgrades on a model painted a particular colour.

Such as?

I played 3rd quite religiously (I got in at the tail end of 2nd) and recall nothing of the sort of what you're on about. Particularity the last part.

And yet with all these minute rules for power swords vs power maces vs power axes, 95 bolt weapons, slews of faction/sub-faction rules, and a small book of strats?

They still can't manage decent terrain rules (9th is better, but....) & you all pretend you can't understand basic simplistic fire arcs on vehicles.

GW has learned its lesson, and that lesson was called Epic 40,000.

For those not aware, this was a very streamlined version of Epic, largely getting rid of weapon detail in favour of a "Firepower" stat except for a few special weapons. So a Marine stand had FP 2 - no messing with what type of special weapon, but that was rarely A Thing in Epic anyway, to be honest. It was most visible in the Guard Armour, where (almost) all the Leman Russ variants were folded into Firepower 3. Standard, Punisher, Exterminator - no matter. FP3. Same system as BF Gothic, essentially.

Even now you won't get many people who mention this edition in a good light, citing that it was too simplistic and had a lack of options (personally I liked it). Upshot was it apparently didn't sell very well and Epic Armageddon was rushed out to cover it - but presumably didn't do well enough to ultimately save the 'franchise', though as we now know Specialist Games weren't looked on favourably at this time.

But the point is that, along with 4th as mentioned, the GW corporate memory holds that the fanbase really likes it's super-granular detail and feeling like it's 'solved' a problem by calculating the optimum weapons mix.

It's an element that's always been in Wargaming; I've played a squad level Infantry combat game that was hilariously anal about the guns, to the degree that the difference might be that a Mk.3 might keep it's short range bonus for an extra 1/4" (!) compared to the Mk.2, for instance. Ultimately it comes down to whether this is to your taste or not.

The greatest irony is that GW forgot why people like 4th. If "micromanaging the weapons" is what GW thought people liked about 4th, that's hilarious.

They ripped out all the stuff people actually liked, about 4th and added more nonsense. A terrible misdiagnosis.

Slipspace wrote:
The US or UK military doesn't hand out a different rifle to each regiment.

US National Guard, M16.
US Army, M4.
Rangers/Delta Force, FN SCAR.
Delta Force/Navy Seals, HK416.
JSOC, SIG MCX.
US Air Force, M16A2.
US Coast Guard/MSRT, Mk 18 carbine.
US Marines, M27 IAR.
US Navy, M110A1.

You were saying? Compared to this, 40K marines are positively simplistic with their 1 set of rules for every bolter, no matter what the pattern it is, despite various patterns having far greater differences between each other than say M4 and HK416.

Disclaimer for any potential nitpicker - yes, a lot of these forces also use other ARs on the above list, I just picked main one for each. And yes, a lot of the above designs have a lot in common, but the different designation usually means the only thing they have in common in logistics is ammunition (and maybe magazines, but even that is not assured and even the ammunition part is kinda wonky given all the snowflakes using battle rifles, or Blackouts, or 7.62, or 5.7, or 4.7, or 9mm, or tons of other variant weird ammunition every force procures for itself).

ccs wrote:
And yet with all these minute rules for 95 bolt weapons

I like how people repeat this over and over when it's demonstrably not true. 8th edition actually cut on that number heavily (twin-bolters and storm-bolters used to be a different things, hurricane bolter is now just 6 bolters welded together, etc, etc the number was seriously consolidated in various ways) and the only additions were funnily enough things for which Bolt Action and Spectre are praised here - addition of bolt rifle and bolt submachine gun. So, 'generic' categories every simple wargaming system uses. I somehow don't see whining Bolt Action has way too many guns and that Colt 1911 pistol should have the exact same stats as MG42 to fight "bloat", go figure.

 catbarf wrote:
Someone made a comparison earlier to Spectre and it's spot-on. I like Spectre. I can build a squad of African militiamen armed with assault rifles with a PKM gunner and an RPG, or I can take a squad of totally-not-SG-1 armed with submachine guns and equipped with body armor, and they play very differently.

Even that might not be enough abstraction for something like 40K;

So, according to you, Colt Model 635 having different rules to Colt M4 is "abstraction" even though these two are nearly identical guns (one just uses 9 mm ammo and is classified as SMG, the other 5.56 and is usually called AR) and yet, something as vastly different as lasgun is to bolter (which is to shuriken gun, or pulse rifle, or gauss disintegrator, etc, etc) having different rules is somehow "bloat"?

What?

And even that claim is funnily enough completely wrong, as 8th edition pretty much abstracted most of infantry weapons away in Indexes (giving most of them just S4 AP- profile) and the special rules that are coming back to add flavor are pretty much equivalent of the Spectre differences (just mostly baked into the guns instead of dudes, because Space Marines or Eldar don't have varying backgrounds like Somalia or New York, so you don't need to muck with infantry profiles to do that).

 Irbis wrote:

US National Guard, M16.
US Army, M4.
Rangers/Delta Force, FN SCAR.
Delta Force/Navy Seals, HK416.
JSOC, SIG MCX.
US Air Force, M16A2.
US Coast Guard/MSRT, Mk 18 carbine.
US Marines, M27 IAR.
US Navy, M110A1.

Those are, for the most part, different services, not different regiments.

I'm going to nitpick anyways:
-M16s, M4s, M16A2s, and Mk18s are all patterns of AR with 99% interchangeable parts, and with the exception of the 3RB A2 you can turn a select-fire lower into any of those by swapping the upper. They're the same gun. Also, USAF primarily issues M4s and Guard's getting them too.
-HK416s and the M27 are gas-operated AR variants that also, for all intents and purposes, are the same gun. M27 is the USMC adoption designation in an automatic gunner role, HK416 is the manufacturer name. You left out that the weapon Marines are primarily issued with is actually the M4. Delta primarily uses AR variants too.
-JSOC doesn't actually use MCXes. They primarily use AR variants.
-Rangers don't use SCARs. SOCOM cancelled their contract for the SCAR-L, but maintains the SCAR-H, which is a DMR and not a standard infantry rifle. SOCOM primarily uses AR variants.
-The M110A1 is also a DMR that doesn't belong on this list. The Navy primarily uses AR variants. You may be noticing a theme here.

So excluding the ones that aren't actually used or aren't infantry rifles, they're all functionally equivalent patterns of 5.56mm AR15 variant. Any decent skirmish wargame (as opposed to one myopically absorbed in gun porn) is going to treat them identically.

And in 40K, if we can treat Kantrael-pattern lasguns (high volume, low power), Lucius-pattern lasguns (low volume, high power), and Mark 4 lascarbines (shorter barrel, lighter frame) all as completely identical, do we really need different profiles for bolters, three flavors of bolt rifle, and boltstorm gauntlets?

 Irbis wrote:
So, according to you, Colt Model 635 having different rules to Colt M4 is "abstraction" even though these two are nearly identical guns (one just uses 9 mm ammo and is classified as SMG, the other 5.56 and is usually called AR) and yet, something as vastly different as lasgun is to bolter (which is to shuriken gun, or pulse rifle, or gauss disintegrator, etc, etc) having different rules is somehow "bloat"?

That's a lot of words in my mouth. Yes, I do think a submachine gun and a carbine should be treated differently in a skirmish wargame, since they actually function meaningfully differently on the battlefield- a 635 is not going to be much use for pinging targets at 300m, for starters, nor is it much good at defeating body armor. Those are relevant, meaningful characteristics that significantly impact their utility on the battlefield in a small-scale skirmish wargame. I'm going to nitpick more: The 635 is a straight blowback-operated closed-bolt submachine gun while the M4 is a rotating-bolt gas-operated direct impingement carbine, and as you said, in different calibers. They have next to no parts intercompatibility, vastly different ballistic profiles, and are doctrinally employed very differently. They're more different from one another than any of the AR variants you listed above.

At the same time, Spectre is a skirmish wargame. In a game where I am fielding platoons of tanks or literal ICBMs, yeah, I don't expect a ton of granularity, and those two can probably be folded together. That's the point here: 40K is a larger-scale wargame than Spectre, and yet in some respects it has even less abstraction. A company-level wargame that doesn't even model command and control, let alone the idea of different factions having different doctrine, has no business getting into the weeds with variant patterns of small arms.

Anyways, did I say lasguns, bolters, shuriken catapults, and pulse rifles should all have the same stats? You'll have to point to where I said that. I'm fine with all of those; there's a lot more difference between a lasgun, a bolter, and a shuriken catapult than there is between a bolter, Slightly Larger Bolter, Slightly Larger Bolter (w/ Scope) and Bolter On A Glove. For that matter, I don't think Radium Carbines or Galvanic Rifles need to have unique special rules; it's chrome for the sake of chrome. How many different variants of autocannon are there now? Or heavy stubber, for that matter? Do Guard, Marines, and AdMech really all need minutely different variants of Space Browning M2?

 Momotaro wrote:
And yet many games set in the real world manage to abstract all of those firearms into a handful of types. Bolt Action has a page of weapons; Spectre Operations, which is for the real gearheads has five and a half generously spaced pages of weapon types. Including vehicle armament, explosives and stand-off weapons like drone strikes, plus differentammo types and sights..

40k doesn't know whether it represents a heroic skirmish, a platoon-sized action or Kursk. You can choose several types of pistol or knife, but it doesn't matter if you're deep in ruins or standing next to a window and on-board aircraft are a thing. Abstraction varies from rule to rule.

I'm not alone in thinking the modern game suffers as a result.

Yes, because many games are ultra streamlined down to boardgame levels of simplicity all in the name of balance and competitiveness and the only thing the matters is what you do because every army is really just the same.

As for having always been able to what you can do now, yeah, maybe if you always played Space Marines and only Space Marines because Space Marines have always been Space Marines,
but let me ask you just what was the difference between a Sister from the Order of Martyred Lady and one from the Bloody Rose in these previous version and which pivotal role did your Death Jester play?

And don't get me started on Crusade; if you haven't played it, IMO you're missing out on the best part of the game; it is literally the game I've wanted since 1989. I'm not going back just so people can balance the spread at a tournament, or so you can fit the rules of all armies in the math hammer engine rather than only worrying about the army that you are actually playing in the moment.

I get that different people want different things out of the game, but the simplified husk of a game suggested by some people on this board makes me wonder why anyone who wanted such a thing would choose to play THIS game- this immersive, encyclopedic universe. I mean jeeze, just play X-Wing and leave me game alone.

PenitentJake wrote:

 Momotaro wrote:
And yet many games set in the real world manage to abstract all of those firearms into a handful of types. Bolt Action has a page of weapons; Spectre Operations, which is for the real gearheads has five and a half generously spaced pages of weapon types. Including vehicle armament, explosives and stand-off weapons like drone strikes, plus differentammo types and sights..

40k doesn't know whether it represents a heroic skirmish, a platoon-sized action or Kursk. You can choose several types of pistol or knife, but it doesn't matter if you're deep in ruins or standing next to a window and on-board aircraft are a thing. Abstraction varies from rule to rule.

I'm not alone in thinking the modern game suffers as a result.

Yes, because many games are ultra streamlined down to boardgame levels of simplicity all in the name of balance and competitiveness and the only thing the matters is what you do because every army is really just the same.

As for having always been able to what you can do now, yeah, maybe if you always played Space Marines and only Space Marines because Space Marines have always been Space Marines,
but let me ask you just what was the difference between a Sister from the Order of Martyred Lady and one from the Bloody Rose in these previous version and which pivotal role did your Death Jester play?

And don't get me started on Crusade; if you haven't played it, IMO you're missing out on the best part of the game; it is literally the game I've wanted since 1989. I'm not going back just so people can balance the spread at a tournament, or so you can fit the rules of all armies in the math hammer engine rather than only worrying about the army that you are actually playing in the moment.

I get that different people want different things out of the game, but the simplified husk of a game suggested by some people on this board makes me wonder why anyone who wanted such a thing would choose to play THIS game- this immersive, encyclopedic universe. I mean jeeze, just play X-Wing and leave me game alone.

The thing is, the game does not really support real differences and they end up being huge difference to where there would be relatively little. We have right now the Simplified Husk in a lot of ways. One of the reasons i think so many factions feel this way is it ends up being, you picked the wrong color paint to play the way you probably should. I not sure anyone really knows enough about most of them to even care.

Crusade and things like it are not that new or novel outside of modern GW, And not particularly special for narrative play. Good for GW to be doing, but sad that so much of the minimum seems to be where we are at :(
Things like Xwing do have a lot of Immersive ideas in a fun package, and even gets a bit more meaningful differences in how things function due to design and scale.
GW still struggles to work out what scale it is they want for 40k.

PenitentJake wrote:
Yes, because many games are ultra streamlined down to boardgame levels of simplicity all in the name of balance and competitiveness and the only thing the matters is what you do because every army is really just the same.

...In contrast to 40K, where Ork hordes are just as easy to command as Space Marines with hundreds of years of combat experience? Where there is no modeling of command and control whatsoever, and every unit equally receives instantaneous orders straight to the brain from on high? The game that uses a stratagem mechanic taken straight out of Euro board games? That's what we're touting as a deep, complex, and narrative-focused experience?

40K has an awful lot of chrome, but as a wargame, it's got all the simplicity you would expect from a ruleset that fits on eight pages. There are plenty of systems out there that are simultaneously more abstracted in their representation of weapons and yet deeper in mechanics and gameplay. Epic's a great example if you're not willing to look beyond the GW sphere; it's got about a fifth as many special rules and weapon profiles, yet it manages to more meaningfully differentiate armies through fluff-accurate distinctions that 40K doesn't even try to model.

 catbarf wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
Yes, because many games are ultra streamlined down to boardgame levels of simplicity all in the name of balance and competitiveness and the only thing the matters is what you do because every army is really just the same.

...In contrast to 40K, where Ork hordes are just as easy to command as Space Marines with hundreds of years of combat experience? Where there is no modeling of command and control whatsoever, and every unit equally receives instantaneous orders straight to the brain from on high? The game that uses a stratagem mechanic taken straight out of Euro board games? That's what we're touting as a deep, complex, and narrative-focused experience?

40K has an awful lot of chrome, but as a wargame, it's got all the simplicity you would expect from a ruleset that fits on eight pages. There are plenty of systems out there that are simultaneously more abstracted in their representation of weapons and yet deeper in mechanics and gameplay. Epic's a great example if you're not willing to look beyond the GW sphere; it's got about a fifth as many special rules and weapon profiles, yet it manages to more meaningfully differentiate armies through fluff-accurate distinctions that 40K doesn't even try to model.

I wish i could get epic going here :( I really always here good things about it, but the idea of it starting just always a tough sell.

When I came to WFB 5th ed from Warzone I was delighted how they managed to make units different despite having, like 10 equipment types across the entire game (hand weapon, spear, great weapon, light armour, heavy armour, shield, some ranged weapons, done)

If a rule (in this case a piece of equipment) doesn't allow players to make interesting decisions, it should be gone. Rules elegance 101.

The fact that the unit commander has a pistol with an additional -1AP and a knife with +1S doesn't change the way you're playing with the unit. You doesn't change the decisions you make for the unit. Ergo - it doesn't add any valuable gameplay, just one inconsequential thing you should remember if you don't want cheat.

On the other hand the fact that a unit has 2 meltaguns or 2 flamers affects your decision making. Those are good examples of a significant change in the unit's profile and decisions you make for this unit.

 catbarf wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

US National Guard, M16.
US Army, M4.
Rangers/Delta Force, FN SCAR.
Delta Force/Navy Seals, HK416.
JSOC, SIG MCX.
US Air Force, M16A2.
US Coast Guard/MSRT, Mk 18 carbine.
US Marines, M27 IAR.
US Navy, M110A1.

Those are, for the most part, different services, not different regiments.

I'm going to nitpick anyways:
-M16s, M4s, M16A2s, and Mk18s are all patterns of AR with 99% interchangeable parts, and with the exception of the 3RB A2 you can turn a select-fire lower into any of those by swapping the upper. They're the same gun. Also, USAF primarily issues M4s and Guard's getting them too.
-HK416s and the M27 are gas-operated AR variants that also, for all intents and purposes, are the same gun. M27 is the USMC adoption designation in an automatic gunner role, HK416 is the manufacturer name. You left out that the weapon Marines are primarily issued with is actually the M4. Delta primarily uses AR variants too.
-JSOC doesn't actually use MCXes. They primarily use AR variants.
-Rangers don't use SCARs. SOCOM cancelled their contract for the SCAR-L, but maintains the SCAR-H, which is a DMR and not a standard infantry rifle. SOCOM primarily uses AR variants.
-The M110A1 is also a DMR that doesn't belong on this list. The Navy primarily uses AR variants. You may be noticing a theme here.

So excluding the ones that aren't actually used or aren't infantry rifles, they're all functionally equivalent patterns of 5.56mm AR15 variant. Any decent skirmish wargame (as opposed to one myopically absorbed in gun porn) is going to treat them identically.

And in 40K, if we can treat Kantrael-pattern lasguns (high volume, low power), Lucius-pattern lasguns (low volume, high power), and Mark 4 lascarbines (shorter barrel, lighter frame) all as completely identical, do we really need different profiles for bolters, three flavors of bolt rifle, and boltstorm gauntlets?

 Irbis wrote:
So, according to you, Colt Model 635 having different rules to Colt M4 is "abstraction" even though these two are nearly identical guns (one just uses 9 mm ammo and is classified as SMG, the other 5.56 and is usually called AR) and yet, something as vastly different as lasgun is to bolter (which is to shuriken gun, or pulse rifle, or gauss disintegrator, etc, etc) having different rules is somehow "bloat"?

That's a lot of words in my mouth. Yes, I do think a submachine gun and a carbine should be treated differently in a skirmish wargame, since they actually function meaningfully differently on the battlefield- a 635 is not going to be much use for pinging targets at 300m, for starters, nor is it much good at defeating body armor. Those are relevant, meaningful characteristics that significantly impact their utility on the battlefield in a small-scale skirmish wargame. I'm going to nitpick more: The 635 is a straight blowback-operated closed-bolt submachine gun while the M4 is a rotating-bolt gas-operated direct impingement carbine, and as you said, in different calibers. They have next to no parts intercompatibility, vastly different ballistic profiles, and are doctrinally employed very differently. They're more different from one another than any of the AR variants you listed above.

At the same time, Spectre is a skirmish wargame. In a game where I am fielding platoons of tanks or literal ICBMs, yeah, I don't expect a ton of granularity, and those two can probably be folded together. That's the point here: 40K is a larger-scale wargame than Spectre, and yet in some respects it has even less abstraction. A company-level wargame that doesn't even model command and control, let alone the idea of different factions having different doctrine, has no business getting into the weeds with variant patterns of small arms.

Anyways, did I say lasguns, bolters, shuriken catapults, and pulse rifles should all have the same stats? You'll have to point to where I said that. I'm fine with all of those; there's a lot more difference between a lasgun, a bolter, and a shuriken catapult than there is between a bolter, Slightly Larger Bolter, Slightly Larger Bolter (w/ Scope) and Bolter On A Glove. For that matter, I don't think Radium Carbines or Galvanic Rifles need to have unique special rules; it's chrome for the sake of chrome. How many different variants of autocannon are there now? Or heavy stubber, for that matter? Do Guard, Marines, and AdMech really all need minutely different variants of Space Browning M2?

This is what's always annoyed me about games in general

Yes ergonomically there is a difference between say a Galil and an M4 and a FAMAS but terminal ballistics? Yeah it doesn't matter if I hit you with a 5.56 fron USA, France or Israel within say 300m. If Im running M855 or M185 sure we can discuss possible variations in damage vs Armour but in terms of a game using D6 and not say D20s or such allowing extra finesse you're not going to get a difference between any 5.56 rifle and most likely not any intermediate cartridge from the StG-44's 7.92x33Kurts to the .223. Probably not even any of the Battle Rifle cartridges or even the older bolt action cartridges in rapid fire guns like the PKM or Bren running 7.62x54R and .303British.

Sure something like a Storm/Twin bolter will have a different damage profile to a single bolter but honestly I wouldn't mind the game being stripped back a bit so the guns aren't an over abundance of almost identical yet similar.

Like their propensity for "keywords".

Bolter, Hellgun Lasgun, Shuriken Catapult, Barbed Strangler, Gauss = keyword Assault = Assault D6 Range 30"
Lasgun, Deathspitter, Shotgun, = rapid =rapid 2 range 20"


Whatever you get the gist. You have light assaulty guns, shooty rapid guns, heavy lay down fire guns but standardized across the races.

Sure they will lose some individually but that's what the races are for.

 Grimtuff wrote:

A.T. wrote:

 Super Ready wrote:
OP - it sounds like you'd have really enjoyed the 3rd ed to 5th ed era.

3e probably isn't the best example, it started simple but by the end of it you were starting to see vast wargear tables and all kinds of trade-off upgrades and variants down to individual point differences for taking particular upgrades on a model painted a particular colour.

Such as?
I played 3rd quite religiously (I got in at the tail end of 2nd) and recall nothing of the sort of what you're on about. Particularity the last part.

Well chaos 3.5 would be the gold standard on excessive options. The primary wargear chart contains over 100 options (not including any of the actual unit wargear options), many of which have a split pricing system and are selectively available based based on options taken elsewhere as they pertain to the army as a whole.

For example the khornate chainaxe costs 1 point for infantry unit models (and for the the upgraded squad leader who must buy it from the armoury which counts against a 75 point limit including a 50 point cap on daemonic gifts and a two weapon cap of which one may be two handed). Note that the khornate axe is not an axe of khorne. The squad leader themselves cost 13 points except for when the squad numbers 8 models and when all characters and units have the mark of khorne and/or only khornate daemons are used in which case it is optionally free provided the army is a world eaters one(paint may be required).The squad itself is normally a troops choice except in order to qualify to take the axe they must take a mark costing 5 points per model which makes them an elites choice except when the army is led by a model with the mark of khorne which makes them troops again. What constitutes 'led' is not explicitly stated. Apply the stat and rules changes on page 47. Disregard all ranged weapons options except 'plasma pistol' on pages 14 and 28. See pages 14, 19, 47 and 48 for additional rules...

(for the last one in particular, painting your army as night lords earns you a 1 point discount on the night vision veteran skill, or 5 points for characters).

Different books had different takes on it. The 3e tyranids had a 'build you own codex' price and stat list - deathspitter fexes, leaping warriors, plasmagaunts, etc. Albeit with relatively few actual options to pick from.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
There's nothing wrong with some flavor, but there is such a thing as adding too much. For example, we have FOUR separate entries for Terminator units. We don't need that many rules for them.

we have four separate entries for ONE COLOUR of Terminator units. There's SIXTEEN (?) in total, not counting the silver or gold ones!

Cyel wrote:

If a rule (in this case a piece of equipment) doesn't allow players to make interesting decisions, it should be gone. Rules elegance 101.

I think this is the key element that 40k seems to constantly miss.

Choosing between a Flamer and a Meltagun is a meaningful decision that affects the unit's role.

Choosing between a Heavy Bolter and a Lascannon is a meaningful decision that affects the unit's role

Choosing between a knife and a sniper rifle is a meaningful decision that affects a unit's role.

etc.


Choosing between a Power Sword and a slightly different Power Sword is not a meaningful decision and has no real effect on how that unit plays.

Choosing between 6 different weapons that are just minor tweaks to the same profile is not a meaningful decision and has no real effect on how that unit plays.

Kayback wrote:

Like their propensity for "keywords".

Bolter, Hellgun Lasgun, Shuriken Catapult, Barbed Strangler, Gauss = keyword Assault = Assault D6 Range 30"
Lasgun, Deathspitter, Shotgun, = rapid =rapid 2 range 20"

As an aside, to me it seems that guns should all have a rate of fire, and 'Assault', 'Heavy', 'Rapid Fire', and 'Pistol' should all become keywords. This would allow for additional variation without needing to go beyond the core rules, as you could have Rapid Fire weapons that are also Assault or Heavy. Or weapons which simply have no special rules.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
There's nothing wrong with some flavor, but there is such a thing as adding too much. For example, we have FOUR separate entries for Terminator units. We don't need that many rules for them.

we have four separate entries for ONE COLOUR of Terminator units. There's SIXTEEN (?) in total, not counting the silver or gold ones!

On a related note, I still don't understand why Jump Packs are an upgrade for Characters, yet Bikes and Jetbikes requite separate unit entries entirely.

Too Fat Lardies games work at the platoon or company level - typically a force will have 40-60 minis in units of 6 or 8. Generally, when a unit attacks you roll a d6 for every figure. More if they're firing machine guns. Basically, very little simulation of weapons at all.

Nonetheless, the games manage to incorporate command and control, unit cohesion and battlefield friction, differences in training and tactical doctrine for different forces.

You know what? They make amazing games that give meaningful tactical choices at every step. Romans need to scout and use their drill to offset being outnumbered, tribesmen need to hit and run, or trick their foes into an ambush. WWII Brits need to learn to use smoke rounds to counter German machine guns (which are great in defence and attack).

A set of wargames rules - any set - is an abstraction and there's far more to simulating warfare than just gun stats. What's important in a small skirmish is not important when you're running fireteams or squads. Sarge needs to know if you're hydrated and remembered to bring your grenades this time; the Colonel wants to position MG, or anti-tank assets - tactical roles - not agonise over whether this grunt here needs a Slightly Better Bolter..

The rules abstraction chosen in those games has nothing to do with balance or tourneys, and armies play radically differently. The rules fit in 50-100 pages, and expansions for the games are generally scenario books or force lists, not more rules.

The 40k rules were a glorious, clunky mess in 1987 and age has not improved them. Although I'd argue that 2nd edition was a good scale for the game - 30-60 models per side, 2 pages of weapon stats, with a ton of amusing special rules to mix it up, because the aim of the game was fun rather than tactical simulation.

Nothing against the core rules. WFB was actually a great game for rank and flank battles. I still play 6th, and being out of sight of GW's marketing team removes the "arms race" meta. Nothing against GE trying to make a buck either.

Go and play Stargrunt, de bellis antiquitatis, Ambush Alley, Chain of Command or any of the hundreds of games that aren't 40k, and see what you're missing out on. Spectre Operations is a fantastic game too - loadout is important, but it's your troops and what you do with them that will win you battles.

Just to harp on the comparison, Spectre also makes forces feel very different through access to equipment.

Your team of SAS operators and my team of Somali militants might have identical stats for their rifles, but I've also got a pair of PKM gunners and a DShK on a technical, while you've got flashbangs and smoke. I have numbers, you have radios. I have RPGs, you have body armor.

These forces are going to play radically differently from one another even though nearly all of them have the same gun. The militants have numbers and raw firepower, but the operators have skill, coordination, and secondary equipment that facilitates a more surgical playstyle.

Put that into 40K and you get one side hitting on 3s and the other side hitting on 5s, and one side having a 5+ while the other has a 4+, and that's it. Without capability-focused (rather than strictly killing-focused) equipment or soft factors like coordination, all you get are varying flavors of killiness, tankiness, and special abilities.

As others have already said, you don't need page after page of weapon profiles if the game system provides opportunity for differentiation and depth in other areas.