Switch Theme:

How 40K has changed and why it doesn't matter...  [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 gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



London

Yes the profusion of profiles for basically the same weapon is a great shame. So many options means it’s impossible to balance and there are obvious better choices. Would be a damn sight easier to remember the stat lines as well. And GW clearly don’t play test this stuff. Look at killteam where the marine missile launcher and heavy bolter are vaguely balanced, except the strat gives two shots with bolt weapons so always going to be better than the missile launcher.

But a core selling point of 40k is the whole million options and construction plans. Makes sense they doubled down on it. As someone more into wargame systems
   
Made in us
Ancient Venerable Dreadnought




San Jose, CA

The move to Relic terminators vs Tartaros & Cataphrachtii was and remains an idiotic move.

They are visually distinct both in bulk & overall silhouette. The rules(previously) had distinct roles for all the variants.

Now they just blend into eachother and not giving any real benefit to either.

   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 Gert wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
Why?

No, seriously. Why? Mk.II-VIII power armour all has identical stats, why does Mk.X power armour need different stats? Ultima boltguns and Phobos boltguns are the same, Mars-pattern and Deimos-pattern Rhinos are the same, what would you lose by making Gravis armour "a pattern of Terminator armour" other than arbitrary stat numbers? Do they fill different roles in the army somehow?

Because it's different? Gravis is Power Armour, Terminator Armour is Terminator Armour. Gravis gives a Toughness and Wound buff but is still a 3+ save. Terminator Armour gives a 2+ Armour Save, a 5+ Invlun
Why does Carapace Armour need different stats to Flak Armour, it all looks the same. How about Dreadnoughts? They all look the same and use the same chassis, so why does there need to be 3 profiles? Could it be that despite similar appearances they do different things and have different rules?

Also, you do realise that in 40k it was only in 9th Edition that different patterns of Terminator Armour stopped giving different benefits right? And that it's still a thing in 30k?
I get loads of you still get angry when you see a Primaris but honestly its just sad at this point.


I don't have a "correct" answer for you here, I just want to make the point that where you draw the line on which things need to have different rules and which things can just be different sculpts of the same thing is fundamentally a subjective question, and when GW makes a decision it's a subjective decision, not a statement of absolute truth.

(I don't have the energy to be angry at GW doing things I disagree with anymore, and even if I were going to disagree with them about the Primaris it's mostly about the quantity of releases and datasheets, not about Primaris existing. Do them as resculpts, or bite the bullet and say "you know what, old-marines are going to be a 30k thing now", but the sheer number of statlines in the current SM book is just silly.)

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

I am not angry at GW. I am angry at my subjective assessment (Phobos is scoutish and Gravis is terminator ish) being declared as "nonsense" because they are OH SO CLEARLY different (apparently in background).

While the same poster says that Steel Legion Armored Fist units aren't different enough from Cadian Shock Troops (despite being more different from each other than ANY power armor is from Terminator Armor, not to mention Gravis specifically, both in background and in visuals).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/15 18:20:56


 
   
Made in gb
Did Fulgrim Just Behead Ferrus?






 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I am not angry at GW. I am angry at my subjective assessment (Phobos is scoutish and Gravis is terminator ish) being declared as "nonsense" because they are OH SO CLEARLY different (apparently in background).

Since it's subjective I can disagree and call it nonsense. Gravis Armour is similar to Terminator Armour in that it is big. That's it. Gravis Armour has a Power Pack, Terminator Armour does not. Gravis Armour is specifically a variation of Mk.X Armour, Terminator Armour is its own thing. Terminator Armour includes a built-in Refractor Field, Gravis Armor does not. You've taken one aspect (size) and decided that it should be the deciding factor in rules.

While the same poster says that Steel Legion Armored Fist units aren't different enough from Cadian Shock Troops (despite being more different from each other than ANY power armor is from Terminator Armor, not 6o mention Gravis specifically).

To be very specific here, a Cadian Armoured Fist and a Steel Legion Armoured Fist are the exact same thing. An Armoured Fist is a mechanised Infantry Platoon mounted in Chimera's. The only difference is the Regimental Trait and models used. Models which by the way, are armed and armoured the same way, Lasguns and Flak Armour.
If I had said Scions and Guardsmen were the same then you would have a point.

The Space Marine Codex has waaaay too many things in it but since separate Primaris and Firstborn Codexes would be monumentally dumb, either people need to:
A - Get over it Primaris are here to stay.
B - Go and play 30k where there is only one type of Space Marine.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/15 18:32:13


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 Gert wrote:
Because it's different? Gravis is Power Armour, Terminator Armour is Terminator Armour. Gravis gives a Toughness and Wound buff but is still a 3+ save. Terminator Armour gives a 2+ Armour Save, a 5+ Invlun


If your answer to every 'why are X and Y the same on the tabletop, but A and B are different' is going to be 'because GW decided X and Y are the same on the tabletop, but A and B are different', then you can just stop posting and save yourself the effort of typing out the same tautologies.

There's tons of stuff in the Guard armory where visually and functionally distinct models use identical stats. Why does a Catachan wearing a t-shirt and carrying a lascarbine have the same stats as a Vostroyan wearing full armor and carrying a rifle as tall as he is? It's abstraction, not everything needs a bespoke profile.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/15 18:33:56


   
Made in gb
Did Fulgrim Just Behead Ferrus?






 catbarf wrote:
If your answer to every 'why are X and Y the same on the tabletop, but A and B are different' is going to be 'because GW decided X and Y are the same on the tabletop, but A and B are different', then you can just stop posting and save yourself the effort of typing out the same tautologies.

Tell it to the people who get annoyed at multiple weapon profiles every second Tuesday.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 Gert wrote:
Since it's subjective I can disagree and call it nonsense. Gravis Armour is similar to Terminator Armour in that it is big. That's it. Gravis Armour has a Power Pack, Terminator Armour does not. Gravis Armour is specifically a variation of Mk.X Armour, Terminator Armour is its own thing. Terminator Armour includes a built-in Refractor Field, Gravis Armor does not. You've taken one aspect (size) and decided that it should be the deciding factor in rules.

 Gert wrote:
Models which by the way, are armed and armoured the same way, Lasguns and Flak Armour.


So what I'm seeing here is basically:

-Gravis is different from Terminator armor in the background, and GW decided to give them different rules, so they deserve to have different rules.

-Cadians are equipped differently from Steel Legion in the background, but GW decided to give Cadians and Steel Legion the same rules, so they shouldn't have different rules?

Seems arbitrary, and pretty circular at that- basically boils down to 'because GW said so'.

   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

The issue is whether or not distinct models get distinct rules is heavily biased towards “Imperial Marines get distinctions, few others do.”

If IG had three types of lasgun, and four different Infantry Squad troops, there would still be a valid complaint against that, but GW would at least be consistent across the factions. As-is, Marines get lavished with attention and other factions just don’t.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

 Gert wrote:
 catbarf wrote:
If your answer to every 'why are X and Y the same on the tabletop, but A and B are different' is going to be 'because GW decided X and Y are the same on the tabletop, but A and B are different', then you can just stop posting and save yourself the effort of typing out the same tautologies.

Tell it to the people who get annoyed at multiple weapon profiles every second Tuesday.


Except that the proliferation of weapon profiles can actually be reasonably seen as a problem, while saying "it's different because it's different" is unhelpful.

Yes, thank you for pointing out that GW made them different by making them different. That doesn't serve any purpose nor does it refute the point.

And, for the record, you can say it is nonsense, but nonsense is an objective term (i.e. "doesn't make sense"). What I have said makes sense, you just don't think it does because you think as GW, and by golly they are different because you (GW) say they are!!!
   
Made in gb
Did Fulgrim Just Behead Ferrus?






 catbarf wrote:
-Gravis is different from Terminator armor in the background, and GW decided to give them different rules, so they deserve to have different rules.

Yes. Not just a little bit different, very different.

-Cadians are equipped differently from Steel Legion in the background, but GW decided to give Cadians and Steel Legion the same rules, so they shouldn't have different rules?

No, they have the same equipment. Lasguns and Flak Armour.

Seems arbitrary, and pretty circular at that- basically boils down to 'because GW said so'.

And the arguments about Space Marines having X units or options are also always the same circular argument. Do you also tell the people who complain non-stop about Primaris or profile options to stop?


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Except that the proliferation of weapon profiles can actually be reasonably seen as a problem, while saying "it's different because it's different" is unhelpful.

Sure, if there were tiny insignificant differences between said weapons. Which there isn't.

Yes, thank you for pointing out that GW made them different by making them different. That doesn't serve any purpose nor does it refute the point.

The point being what exactly? That you think Gravis Armour should be Terminator Armour because its big?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/15 19:04:33


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 Gert wrote:
No, they have the same equipment. Lasguns and Flak Armour.


In the rules, yes. In the background, no.

In the background, Cadians are equipped with helmets, chest plates, shoulder pads, and greaves with some of the most advanced materials science in the Imperium. Their lasguns are optimized for long-range fire and are fully-automatic with a high rate of fire.

Steel Legionaries are equipped with steel helmets and that's it for protection, but they have closed-cycle respirator systems to fight through gas and smoke. Their lascarbines are powerful, semi-auto weapons designed to blow chunks out of Orks at close range.

Meanwhile Catachans have literal t-shirts- no flak armor at all- while Vostroyans have carapace armor and long-range, high-power lasguns passed down from generation to generation.

All of these have the same stats on the table despite massive differences in the background.

Once again you're quoting lore differences to justify rules differences for Marines, but rules equivalence to downplay lore differences for Guard.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/15 19:11:04


   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

 Gert wrote:
The point being what exactly? That you think Gravis Armour should be Terminator Armour because its big?

The point being that the same differences one can cite for Gravis Armor being different from Terminator Armor (i.e. either "Visually Distinct" or "Lore Distinct") are also reasons for Cadians and Steel Legion to be different from one another.

The difference you have chosen to cite ("they are different because GW said they are different, but has not said they are different for Cadians and Steel Legion") is unconvincing to someone who doesn't find "because GW says" to be a compelling reason.
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 catbarf wrote:
As time goes on, I become much less convinced of this. It certainly was a kick in the teeth for casual play when Genestealers got a points hike, because tournament players were successfully using them as Kraken plus the Swarmlord's double-movement ability to make turn 1 charges. Their points cost was adjusted around a very specific combo that showed up in tournament play but couldn't be done if you weren't playing a specific subfaction and taking a specific special character.

Or take Tau, which got balanced in 8th around the tournament success of triple Riptides and a sea of shield drones, with the result being a completely dysfunctional army for casual play.
That sounds like less a problem with tournament play balancing (or over-balancing) casual play, and more like GW's inability to get things right.

 Gert wrote:
Because Phobos Armour isn't Scout Armour, it's Power Armour, just like Gravis is Power Armour and not Terminator Armour.

Mk.X Power Armour is a modular piece of equipment and each suit can be modified into Tacticus, Phobos or Gravis depending on the situation. At the same time, it is compatible with certain parts of previous armour Marks. The whole point of Mk.X is that it takes the idea of 8 iterations of Power Armour and puts it into one package. Does the mission require stealth? Those Iron Hands in clunky Mk.2/3 aren't going to be useful but Mk.X can be fitted as Phobos.

I get loads of you still get angry when you see a Primaris but honestly its just sad at this point.
You're not addressing his points at all, and that last line about "still get angry" and "just sad" is a dishonest deflection. Don't do that.

Or, to repeat Catbarf as he put it so perfectly: You are quoting lore differences to justify rules differences for Marines, but rules equivalence to downplay lore differences for Guard. And, to add to that, you're then falling back on tired "stop being angry!" "just accept Primaris Marines" and other irrelevant lines that have zero bearing on the conversation at hand. Do better.



This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2021/09/15 23:47:44


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

 
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 catbarf wrote:
As time goes on, I become much less convinced of this. It certainly was a kick in the teeth for casual play when Genestealers got a points hike, because tournament players were successfully using them as Kraken plus the Swarmlord's double-movement ability to make turn 1 charges. Their points cost was adjusted around a very specific combo that showed up in tournament play but couldn't be done if you weren't playing a specific subfaction and taking a specific special character.

Or take Tau, which got balanced in 8th around the tournament success of triple Riptides and a sea of shield drones, with the result being a completely dysfunctional army for casual play.
That sounds like less a problem with tournament play balancing (or over-balancing) casual play, and more like GW's inability to get things right.


Or possibly an effect of 9th's wombo-combo mechanics?

If you have a unit that's normally fine but can become insane if you combine subfaction X's bonus with the effect of stratagem Y (neither of which are paid for in the conventional manner of points), then that creates a lot of issues when it comes to pricing/balancing that unit.

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



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

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


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

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


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


 insaniak wrote:

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

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Then you fix the cause of problem. You don't increase the cost of the unit people are using to make the best use of the combination. That just makes the unit useless everywhere else except that specific combo, further incentivising the combo that you're trying to fix!

I'm always reminded of the days of 3rd/4th when Guard had 6 point plasma guns. GW eventually put their cost up to 10 points, the argument being that plasma guns were rare compared to Grenade Launchers and Flamers. As Janthkin so perfectly put it at the time, the change to 10 points didn't mean we were going to take fewer plasma guns. Rather, it meant we were going to take fewer other things so that we could pay for the same amount of plasma guns. My argument was that if you want something to be rare, then make it rare, don't make it cost more.

Points, despite what many people believe, are not the great leveller. They cannot be used to solve all the problems in the game, and the Genestealer/Swarmlord issue is a great example of that. This is even more true in a world with so many "free" abilities, like strats and warlord traits and relic wombo-combos. Changing the points of a unit because free abilities make them powerful seems punitive, not to mention an ass-backwards way of writing rules.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/09/16 00:05:18


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

 
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Then you fix the cause of problem. You don't increase the cost of the unit people are using to make the best use of the combination. That just makes the unit useless everywhere else except that specific combo, further incentivising the combo that you're trying to fix!


Oh I don't disagree at all.

My point was simply that 9th's mechanics (stratagems especially) don't exactly lend themselves to good unit balance at the best of times. Especially in the hands of a company that has never regarded balance as a high priority in the first place.

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



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

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


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

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


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


 insaniak wrote:

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

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut




 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Gert wrote:
...A Captain with Scout or Terminator Armour is different to a Primaris Captain in Phobos or Gravis Armour...


Why?

No, seriously. Why? Mk.II-VIII power armour all has identical stats, why does Mk.X power armour need different stats? Ultima boltguns and Phobos boltguns are the same, Mars-pattern and Deimos-pattern Rhinos are the same, what would you lose by making Gravis armour "a pattern of Terminator armour" other than arbitrary stat numbers? Do they fill different roles in the army somehow?


Why do we need a different datasheet for each Predator variant? When we can just put them into a single datasheet like the Hellhound or Leman Russ. Is it to allow for rule of 3? If so, why not combine them and add the vehicle squadron rules Hellhounds and Leman Russes have?

There's just so much datasheet bloat in the marine codex.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm always reminded of the days of 3rd/4th when Guard had 6 point plasma guns. GW eventually put their cost up to 10 points, the argument being that plasma guns were rare compared to Grenade Launchers and Flamers. As Janthkin so perfectly put it at the time, the change to 10 points didn't mean we were going to take fewer plasma guns. Rather, it meant we were going to take fewer other things so that we could pay for the same amount of plasma guns. My argument was that if you want something to be rare, then make it rare, don't make it cost more.


The problem here is that they didn't also bring Grenade Launcher and Flamer costs down as well. Most people would instantly justify a points increase as a nerf or balance adjustment, if they had also dropped the points of the other special weapons even by as little as 1 point then the intention becomes much more clear. "We want you to try taking these weapons instead."

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/16 00:13:32


 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Jarms48 wrote:
Why do we need a different datasheet for each Predator variant? When we can just put them into a single datasheet like the Hellhound or Leman Russ. Is it to allow for rule of 3? If so, why not combine them and add the vehicle squadron rules Hellhounds and Leman Russes have?

There's just so much datasheet bloat in the marine codex.
Thank you for bringing this up, as it's another example of why Rule of 3 is a complete joke.

First GW destroyed the FOC with formations in 7th. Then they kept it meaningless with limitless detachments in 8th. Then they realised that that might not be the best idea (Loyal 32!) to put an actual cost for taking more detachments into the game. Good baby steps. And Rule of 3 became an actual rule in 9th* (rather than just a suggested guideline for organised play like it was in 8th)... but it only affects a small group of units because there are so. Many. Datasheets.

Why have a Rule of 3 when there are two Predator Datasheets? Why have a Rule of 3 when you can bring, I think, 11 Leman Russes in a standard list (no doubt 'only' 10 come the new Codex when Tank Commanders get the '1 per army' treatment)? I don't understand what Rule of 3 is even meant to do in this game.

Jarms48 wrote:
The problem here is that they didn't also bring Grenade Launcher and Flamer costs down as well. Most people would instantly justify a points increase as a nerf or balance adjustment, if they had also dropped the points of the other special weapons even by as little as 1 point then the intention becomes much more clear. "We want you to try taking these weapons instead."
I hadn't looked at that side of it before. You're right, they should have done that as well. But their aim was to make plasma guns rare, but failed at making them rare and, in effect, made the chances of seeing non-plasma guns even more rare!


*Oh look! Another tournament rule becomes a core rule... and this isn't Tournament Edition 40k?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/16 00:21:19


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

 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 H.B.M.C. wrote:
...I don't understand what Rule of 3 is even meant to do in this game...


Restrict the spamming of DPs/Flyrants/Shield-Captains/Tau Commanders. (I won't say it worked, just that that was what it was originally for.)

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Restrict the spamming of DPs/Flyrants/Shield-Captains/Tau Commanders. (I won't say it worked, just that that was what it was originally for.)
I know why it originated, but those reasons aren't valid anymore. You can still bring 3 Flyrants... but do people do that?

Seems like a solution looking for a problem, a problem that got patched out the moment Supreme Command Detachments with 5 HQ slots went the way of the Dodo.

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

 
   
Made in de
Battlefield Tourist






Nuremberg

The second complicating factor is that Plasma Guns back in the day were at least partially so good because of the metagame. There were so many 3+ saves, being AP2 Rapid Fire is so much more valuable than anything the Grenade Launcher or Flamer could add.

If the meta had been full of orks and small tyranids, or even other guard, it would have changed the calculation.

Same thing seems to happen when you need multiple damage weapons to take on space marines these days. They always skew the game balance hugely due to their numbers.

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

Yeah, very true.

Whatever the weapon to kill Marines is becomes the "default" weapon, because Marines are the "default" TAC foe.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

Which in turn creates a number of feels-bad scenarios- Marines feel like they're at a disadvantage because TAC lists are set up to hard-counter them, while GEQ hordes can achieve victory by putting down more bodies than an anti-MEQ list can handle.

Can't see that changing as long as the Marine favoritism continues, so in the meantime I load up on heavy bolters.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Da Boss wrote:
My impression is that I'm in the vast minority about the 32mm bases to be fair!


I'm actually with you on the scale creep, I personally don't like it. It really makes it all take up more space, which is an issue with a large collection and for me I don't think it adds anything. I also didn't rebase my guys though so there is that. I just have one force that uses all the updated base sizes and my larger collection does not. In the end of the day all the bloat and creep and direction has made me have to take it way more casual than I used to. I just don't have the care to stay on the edge, costs way too much and takes way too much time. I'm just in it have what fun I can at this point.
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





 catbarf wrote:
 Gert wrote:
No, they have the same equipment. Lasguns and Flak Armour.


In the rules, yes. In the background, no.

In the background, Cadians are equipped with helmets, chest plates, shoulder pads, and greaves with some of the most advanced materials science in the Imperium. Their lasguns are optimized for long-range fire and are fully-automatic with a high rate of fire.

Steel Legionaries are equipped with steel helmets and that's it for protection, but they have closed-cycle respirator systems to fight through gas and smoke. Their lascarbines are powerful, semi-auto weapons designed to blow chunks out of Orks at close range.

Meanwhile Catachans have literal t-shirts- no flak armor at all- while Vostroyans have carapace armor and long-range, high-power lasguns passed down from generation to generation.

All of these have the same stats on the table despite massive differences in the background.

Once again you're quoting lore differences to justify rules differences for Marines, but rules equivalence to downplay lore differences for Guard.


Catachans are 80s action heroes. They can get away with anything so t-shirts aren't an issue. Hell, they don't even need lasguns as manly one-liners are usually enough to remove models from the table.
   
Made in us
Waaagh! Warbiker





 AngryAngel80 wrote:
 Da Boss wrote:
My impression is that I'm in the vast minority about the 32mm bases to be fair!


I'm actually with you on the scale creep, I personally don't like it. It really makes it all take up more space, which is an issue with a large collection and for me I don't think it adds anything. I also didn't rebase my guys though so there is that. I just have one force that uses all the updated base sizes and my larger collection does not. In the end of the day all the bloat and creep and direction has made me have to take it way more casual than I used to. I just don't have the care to stay on the edge, costs way too much and takes way too much time. I'm just in it have what fun I can at this point.


Same here. My Necrons, Orks, and most of my Space Marines are still on older 25mm bases (some heroes and terminators on larger bases). They still look fine to me, fit more easily into my older storage cases, and don't impact the casual games I play. But then I started at a time when the only 40k bases sizes were 25mm rounds, 25mmx50mm rectangular (cavalry/bikes), and 40mm (squares!).

 
   
Made in us
Ancient Venerable Dreadnought




San Jose, CA

I have no problem with differing base sizes and use my RTB-01's quite often alongside my Primaris.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




NE Ohio, USA

 Gnarlly wrote:
 AngryAngel80 wrote:
 Da Boss wrote:
My impression is that I'm in the vast minority about the 32mm bases to be fair!


I'm actually with you on the scale creep, I personally don't like it. It really makes it all take up more space, which is an issue with a large collection and for me I don't think it adds anything. I also didn't rebase my guys though so there is that. I just have one force that uses all the updated base sizes and my larger collection does not. In the end of the day all the bloat and creep and direction has made me have to take it way more casual than I used to. I just don't have the care to stay on the edge, costs way too much and takes way too much time. I'm just in it have what fun I can at this point.


Same here. My Necrons, Orks, and most of my Space Marines are still on older 25mm bases (some heroes and terminators on larger bases). They still look fine to me, fit more easily into my older storage cases, and don't impact the casual games I play. But then I started at a time when the only 40k bases sizes were 25mm rounds, 25mmx50mm rectangular (cavalry/bikes), and 40mm (squares!).


Same here. In general the only things on new size bases are, well, new things. Because that's the bases that come in the kits....
There's a few exceptions though:
*My genestealers - they're all on.... 32s? Whatever size termies started coming on when their plastic kit came along 3rd (or was it 4th?) Because on their original bases they were top heavy & always got their arms tangled up. Using a slightly larger base solved both problems.
*My Juggernauts of Khorne - because my units were a mish-mash of ancient lead, new metal, & current plastics. Most picked up 2nd hand out of cheap EBay lots. I had current ovals, squares, circles, rectangles... Not all the same company/style, & some not even plastic. And my oldest original Juggernaut that I bought during the WHFB v.3/RT days? He's on a cavalry base!
Passable if only using a few juggernauts, but fielded en-masse? It looked pretty dire. So I rebased them all to current ovals (and made them rectangle movement trays for WHFB purposes). My OG juggernaut though is still on his cav base - just magnetized to an oval.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: