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.

WL Trait and Relic imbalance is the least of issues and not something that can be fully fixed without assigning points to each one. As long as every model in your case/cabinet are useful I'll be happy (Relics are not models), it's more important that Traits and Relics are thematic and exciting to use than exactly balanced. At the end of the day you're missing out on at most 20 pts by taking a bad Relic, that's not the end of the world. What is the end of the world is if you trade a fun relic that lets you teleport with a unit once per game for a once per game flamer that deals 1 wimpy mortal wound, where is the power fantasy in that? If a faction is overperforming and every list in that faction uses the same 1-2 relics like 8th edition Ironstone and Killa Klaw then I think it'd be a good nerf target. Part of the problem is where do you change relics? In each new codex? That's a rather rare opportunity. I think all Relics and Traits should go in Chapter Approved instead, that'd mean two chances each year to update and rebalance Relics without new players being bamboozled by half their relics having gotten online Errata, GW could just make a small note of which Relics are new, changed or removed.

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, I like a well-balanced game. I like a game where player skill at the table is the main determinant of victory and defeat. 40k... Is not that. And will probably never be that. GW just doesn't care enough to make a balanced game.

But! I also like customization. I like being able to tweak and modify models and lists and all that. And GW used to be good about that. Nowadays... Not so much.

Look at Dark Eldar. Stonkingly powerful! Really flipping boring.

I feel like, if GW isn't going to do more than cursory balance, they should at least make it so you can customize the ever-loving hell out of your guys. But that's going away, and it sucks.

Agree? Disagree? Am I a moron, or do you feel similarly?

I'm still hoping they'll learn to balance the game, that doesn't mean I don't also want customization, but maybe a bit less than you. I think every single unit being a unique snowflake is too much because it'll slow the game down, a few unique snowflakes is fine and spamming one particular melee or ranged weapon in a unit is fine as long as each variant is decent.

If we're being generous they've had 20 years and 5 edition revision with which to learn how to balance the game (assuming balance only really started being a major issue when the internet allowed people worldwide to complain about it together, instead of just playing casual lists with the odd That Guy in the group).

If they haven't learned by now they never will.

there are those that have learned, they are just not working for GW any more

so each time you have new people, with new ideas that need to learn from scratch, and as soon they have, they leave for different reasons

for OPs question

One Page Rules is the game, 8th Edition wanted to be but was not executed well and changed mid-edition to be something different
(the minimum core rules with additional army rules etc), so for this kind of game, just stick with the original idea (OPR) GW failed to copy

for the current version of the game, GW just don't know what the game should be, they just know what they want from the game

they want it to be something that sells models and books
they want it to be a strong IP all people recognize even if they don't play or read the books
they want it to be casual and fun with "winning" being not important
they want to control the event/tournament scene to avoid that those do their own thing (as "we don't need GW to play 40k tournaments and make our own version of the game" during 5th-7th)
they want it to be a skirmish game so new people can start small, but also large so people can use they whole collection (or buy more to play against people with large armies)

and the current version of 40k is the result of trying to achieve everything at once

 Daedalus81 wrote:


That's rather misleading.

An Archon comes with a Shadowfield [What if I don't want the bloody Shadowfield? What if, instead, I want a Clone Field?] and can take:

Agoniser - ( used to be poison, no armor ) - still poison and removes most armor [And is utter garbage because wounds have multiplied drastically yet it remains D1]
Huskblade - ( instant death ) - a dead concept [And yet, hilariously, the most expensive weapon.]
Venom Blade - ( poison 2+ ) - still the same [No, no it isn't. Even aside from the fact that the game has changed around it, the Venom Blade used to be the cheap weapon - it was 1/4th of the cost of the Agoniser and 1/6th the cost of the Huskblade. Now it's just 5pts cheaper than the Huskblade and exactly the same price as the Agoniser.
Blast Pistol [Whoop-de-doo.]

[What you're also ignoring is that these weapons used to fulfil actual niches. The Venom Blade, as mentioned, was a very cheap option for an Archon who wanted to focus on, for example, shooting. Then you had the Agoniser, which was the 'standard' weapon. It ignored armour and always wounded on a 4+. It was more expensive than the Venom Blade but was more effective and also largely self-contained. And at the highest end you had the Huskblade - which was intended to hunt characters and monsters. It was riskier, due to S3, but deadly if if it got even a single wound through. What's more, it could be combined with other wargear like the Soul Trap and Combat Drugs Dispenser to mitigate some of its weaknesses (albeit at even greater cost). Now, however, Soul Trap and CDD are gone completely and the weapons have been so homogenised in both cost and function that it barely even constitutes a choice anymore.]

He can also take:
[Hang on, we're not finished yet. Where is the Blaster? This was a vital part of the Archon's arsenal and now it's just gone outright with no replacement whatsoever. Why are you just glossing over that like it's no big deal?]

Animus Vitae - MW grenade and temp PfP buff
Djinn Blade - +2A; 1s hit bearer
Helm of Spite - deny
Parasite's Kiss - healing pistol
Soul-Seeker - sniper pistol
Writ of the Living Muse - reroll wounds of 1 aura
The Obsidian Veil - 4++
Armor of Misery - 3+ save and -1 to be hit in melee

The old stuff did:

Ghostplate - 4+/6++
Soul-trap - double S if you kill a character
Djin Blade - +2A and doubles hit weilder
Clone Field - Ignore D3 attacks
Shadow Field - exactly the same as it is now
Webway Portal - put units into portal, which is a strat now

If anything the options have more variety and interaction. And THEN on top of that you have WL traits, which include rerolls, healing when killing, fight last, +1S to weapons, +1S/+1A, FNP and ignore attrition, and steal CP.

If paying points is the only thing that makes you think you have choice I'm not sure what to tell you.

I've given some of my thoughts in Red above but this is completely disingenuous.

Firstly, you are ignoring both the loss of options (e.g. the Blaster) and the homogenisation of what options the Archon has left.

Second, you are being completely dishonest by both pretending that standard wargear is equivalent to artefacts (hint: it isn't) and also ignoring the restrictions that go with said artefacts.

With the old Archon, you had the same wargear selection regardless of what Kabal you were playing him as. Now, however, you're automatically locked out of several artefact and WLT choices just from that choice alone. e.g. if I take any Kabal other than Poison Tongue then I'm automatically locked out of the only weapon with more than 12" of range.

Moreover, the restriction on one-artefact-per-character means most of the choices that used to work together now can't be taken together. If I take the Soul-Seeker in lieu of a Blaster then I'm now locked out of the Archon's only worthwhile melee weapon (because that, too, is now an artefact). I used to be able to take a Clone Field and Ghostplate. Now I have to pick between the two equivalents and, in addition to also being locked out of both a ranged weapon and a worthwhile melee weapon, I'm still left paying for a Shadowfield that I didn't want in the first place.


Also also, I notice you didn't even try to address the Haemonculus. Want to tell me where my artefact equivalent of the Hexrifle is? Or even the humble Liquifier Gun? Or, you know, their entire melee arsenal? How about the Shattershard or the Orb of Despair or the Soul Trap (yeah, Haemonculi could take those as well)?

I notice, too, that you don't seem to apply this standard to other armies. I certainly haven't seen you complaining that the Autarch has retained his ranged weapons and non-artefact wargear, and saying instead that the former should be removed and the latter only available as an artefact. I haven't heard people say that SM characters should be reduced to a Power Sword, Chainsword and Plasma Pistol, that bikes and jump packs should be removed outright, and that wargear such as Power Fists and Relic Blades should be available only as artefacts.

Why is this standard only ever applied to Dark Eldar? It's hard to see it as anything other than people arguing in bad faith where any amount of wargear loss is apparently justified, provided it's inflicted on this specific army.

I didn't bother with the Haemonculus, because I don't really have time to run through every single thing. It wasn't an attempt to be misleading.

As noted above - I guarantee you those old options weren't all good picks. Huskblade is either incredible or trash depending on when Eternal Warrior came out and what people used.

The initial problem was customization of characters if they no longer care about balance. If they don't care about balance then they're free to go into whatever kabal, cult, etc that makes them happy.

I don't agree with the notion that adding every weapon under the sun as the only path to making bespoke characters.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

As noted above - I guarantee you those old options weren't all good picks. Huskblade is either incredible or trash depending on when Eternal Warrior came out and what people used.

I never once claimed that every past option was a good one. Hell, I'm pretty sure I specifically referenced that there were duds among them.

I just think that 'okay, let's see if we can make some of these dud items better' is a better response than 'okay, let's just remove all these options entirely, whether they're duds or not'.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

The initial problem was customization of characters if they no longer care about balance. If they don't care about balance then they're free to go into whatever kabal, cult, etc that makes them happy.

That addresses literally none of the points I raised.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

I don't agree with the notion that adding every weapon under the sun as the only path to making bespoke characters.

I appreciate your confirming here that you're simply not prepared to argue in good faith.

It's not just weapon options. There are other wargear options as well. Consider the following two IG HQ characters custom made from 3.5:

"Colonel Ivan Belinski, Commander of the 53rd Chortaxi Vanguard"
- Heroic Senior Officer
- Trademark Item (Golden Skull-Cane)
- Bionics
- Plasma Pistol (Master Crafted)
- Storm Bolter
- Refractor Field
- Carapace Armor
- Medallion Crimson

"Captain Tomas van Lourd of the 267th Armageddon Steel Legion"
- Senior Officer
- Refractor Field
- Plasma Pistol
- Power Sword
- Frag Grenades

Ivan holds the line rather than preferring to enter close-combat himself, positioned in the center of his defensive works likely with a company - or regimental - standard. He is a hero, a decorated veteran whose wounds have been patched by bionic replacement. His staff is a symbol to his men, held high and waving as he bellows orders to those around him.

Tomas, meanwhile, is a competent but unexceptional company captain, finding most of his time issuing orders from within his Armageddon Chimera. He doesn't wear bulky carapace armor, and carries close-combat equipment to see a mechanized assault home. He only disembarks when necessary however, and dispenses with the typical flair and flash of some of his more heroic and inspiring peers.

Consider them in 9th:
Colonel Ivan:
Company Commander with Bolter, Plasma Pistol

Captain Thomas: company Commander with power sword, plasma pistol

Woo, so distinct and different!

 oni wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Maybe people should try this mission. If you show up and the only thing you're doing is rolling dice to remove models...and I don't mean this in an insulting manner at all...you're doing it wrong.

Maybe we don't agree on what terrain should look like, but 40K absolutely offers a engaging game when facing a good opponent.

The missions are the problem. Bland, soulless, favoring specific types of armies and rewarding specific types of play. And your comment about needing a good opponent (read as good opponent = good player) for the game to be enjoyable comes off as insulting.

Mike Brandt = The new Matt Ward.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mark my words. GW pandering so heavily to competitive play will not end well for any of us.

The LVO and Nova have fractured the W40K community, split it into two camps… and their toxic tendrils have crept too far in. The disease of competitive play needs cut out lest the whole organism die.

The "tiny, vocal minority" of competitive players is not as small as the fluffhammer advocates would like to believe or GW wouldn't be building their game to cater to the competitive players. Also I'm not sure why fluffhammer players care as they can just play another edition or houserule. If you aren't playing in tournaments, why does the tournament meta affect your garagehammer games?

Telling "fluff hammer" players to feth off and find another game (or edition) to play is peak DakkaDakka.

I'm not really enjoying 9th. No idea what GW is trying to do aside from drive some of us out. I'm at the point where staying home and painting models is 100% more entertaining and more exciting than trying to play a game. I have no expectations that I will play any future editions. I miss looking forward to having a game. I constantly think about selling my 9th edition army, cards and books and that really bothers me.

 oni wrote:


Mike Brandt = The new Matt Ward.

I sincerely wish GW had a rules writer as passionate about the game and writing rules for it as Ward. His armies had power level issues but they were fun, dynamic, had imaginative and fluffy special rules and were actually interesting to build different lists for. If GW made the surprise announcement that Ward wrote the new Tyranid codex I'd be back to the game in a heartbeat.

40K's balance has been "meh, good enough" for editions now.

You can have a bit of fun with the game if it isn't taken too seriously, but once one side or the other decides they want to play to win, the whole thing goes into a flaming dumpster pile.

And GW doesn't care enough to fix it, because that'd take resources better spent drafting up new models and selling them by the fistful.

Talk about disingenuous arguments. You have deliberately just ignored half the stuff for the 8th Ed profiles and added the extra "lore" section to your 3.5 Ed example to make it sound better.
So let's do it properly this time.
9th Ed
Colonel Noa Fise, Mordian 87th: Company Commander
- Senior Officer
- Voice of Command
- Refractor Field
- Chainsword
- Plasma Pistol
- Order of the Iron Star of Mordian (Relic)
- Iron Discipline (Warlord Trait)

Colonel Fise is a hardened veteran of the Mordian 87th, having been promoted from a Lieutenant in a support company all the way to Regimental Command. His many decades of service have earned him the most prestigious Order of the Iron Star, an honour that both serves as recognition of his talents and is rumoured to have been blessed by the Emperor to ensure His loyal servants do not fall in battle. Fise has the respect and admiration of the entire 87th, so much so that they will not flee under his watchful eye, keen to ensure the Regiment lives up to the glorious standards set by its commanding officer.

Major Kylan Jakson, Catachan 22nd "The Yellow Snakes": Company Commander
- Senior Officer
- Voice of Command
- Refractor Field
- Power Sword
- Bolt Pistol
- Mamorph Tuskblade (Relic)
- Old Grudges (Warlord Trait)

Major Jakson is a typical Imperial Hero. Dashing, brave, and with a habit of getting stuck into the dirt alongside his soldiers. As a youth, Jakson hunted a famous Shambling Mamorph and wet his Catachan fang in its blood, an act which is rumoured to bring great strength to the bearer. This ritual did not bring Jakson luck, however, and on his first deployment two-thirds of his Company were annihilated by a rampaging Ork Waaaagh, earning him a nasty scar and a deep seated hatred of the Xenos. This hatred lives on to this day, with Jakson volunteering his Regiment for the dangerous duty of hunting Orks in the jungles of Armageddon, ever looking to show the Xenos the meaning of the phrase "an eye for an eye".

Of course, you could always do this magical thing of using Crusade rules to beef up your army's "fluff factor" because Crusade forces are not limited to Crusade Campaigns, all you need is to ask your opponent if they're cool with it.

 vipoid wrote:
I appreciate your confirming here that you're simply not prepared to argue in good faith.

Umm, no. I just disagree that a blaster adds a meaningful choice. Sometimes you have to pull off the nostalgia glasses.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Telling "fluff hammer" players to feth off and find another game (or edition) to play is peak DakkaDakka.

Maybe we should do it, lets all the fluff-hammer players move to another game and see how long it takes for the rest to follow

Well Battletech has had quite a resurgence

 auticus wrote:
Well Battletech has had quite a resurgence

Yeah, but I have a feeling that's more due to increase of accessibility than any other reason.

Dunno without a poll, but the groups I am in that regularly get new 40k players switching over give a lot of other reasons for enjoying the game as well!

 kodos wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Telling "fluff hammer" players to feth off and find another game (or edition) to play is peak DakkaDakka.

Maybe we should do it, lets all the fluff-hammer players move to another game and see how long it takes for the rest to follow

If all the fluff-hammer players left GW would tank and maybe 40k would get bought by a company that actually wants to design a good game.

 Gert wrote:

Spoiler:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It's not just weapon options. There are other wargear options as well. Consider the following two IG HQ characters custom made from 3.5:

"Colonel Ivan Belinski, Commander of the 53rd Chortaxi Vanguard"
- Heroic Senior Officer
- Trademark Item (Golden Skull-Cane)
- Bionics
- Plasma Pistol (Master Crafted)
- Storm Bolter
- Refractor Field
- Carapace Armor
- Medallion Crimson

"Captain Tomas van Lourd of the 267th Armageddon Steel Legion"
- Senior Officer
- Refractor Field
- Plasma Pistol
- Power Sword
- Frag Grenades

Ivan holds the line rather than preferring to enter close-combat himself, positioned in the center of his defensive works likely with a company - or regimental - standard. He is a hero, a decorated veteran whose wounds have been patched by bionic replacement. His staff is a symbol to his men, held high and waving as he bellows orders to those around him.

Tomas, meanwhile, is a competent but unexceptional company captain, finding most of his time issuing orders from within his Armageddon Chimera. He doesn't wear bulky carapace armor, and carries close-combat equipment to see a mechanized assault home. He only disembarks when necessary however, and dispenses with the typical flair and flash of some of his more heroic and inspiring peers.

Consider them in 9th:
Colonel Ivan:
Company Commander with Bolter, Plasma Pistol

Captain Thomas: company Commander with power sword, plasma pistol

Woo, so distinct and different!

Talk about disingenuous arguments. You have deliberately just ignored half the stuff for the 8th Ed profiles and added the extra "lore" section to your 3.5 Ed example to make it sound better.
So let's do it properly this time.
9th Ed
Colonel Noa Fise, Mordian 87th: Company Commander
- Senior Officer
- Voice of Command
- Refractor Field
- Chainsword
- Plasma Pistol
- Order of the Iron Star of Mordian (Relic)
- Iron Discipline (Warlord Trait)

Colonel Fise is a hardened veteran of the Mordian 87th, having been promoted from a Lieutenant in a support company all the way to Regimental Command. His many decades of service have earned him the most prestigious Order of the Iron Star, an honour that both serves as recognition of his talents and is rumoured to have been blessed by the Emperor to ensure His loyal servants do not fall in battle. Fise has the respect and admiration of the entire 87th, so much so that they will not flee under his watchful eye, keen to ensure the Regiment lives up to the glorious standards set by its commanding officer.

Major Kylan Jakson, Catachan 22nd "The Yellow Snakes": Company Commander
- Senior Officer
- Voice of Command
- Refractor Field
- Power Sword
- Bolt Pistol
- Mamorph Tuskblade (Relic)
- Old Grudges (Warlord Trait)

Major Jakson is a typical Imperial Hero. Dashing, brave, and with a habit of getting stuck into the dirt alongside his soldiers. As a youth, Jakson hunted a famous Shambling Mamorph and wet his Catachan fang in its blood, an act which is rumoured to bring great strength to the bearer. This ritual did not bring Jakson luck, however, and on his first deployment two-thirds of his Company were annihilated by a rampaging Ork Waaaagh, earning him a nasty scar and a deep seated hatred of the Xenos. This hatred lives on to this day, with Jakson volunteering his Regiment for the dangerous duty of hunting Orks in the jungles of Armageddon, ever looking to show the Xenos the meaning of the phrase "an eye for an eye".

Of course, you could always do this magical thing of using Crusade rules to beef up your army's "fluff factor" because Crusade forces are not limited to Crusade Campaigns, all you need is to ask your opponent if they're cool with it.

Let's dig in a little on this, shall we?

- Heroic Senior Officer Optional upgrade
- Trademark Item (Golden Skull-Cane) Optional wargear purchase
- Bionics Optional wargear purchase
- Plasma Pistol (Master Crafted) Optional wargear purchase with additional optional upgrade
- Storm Bolter Optional wargear purchase
- Refractor Field Optional wargear purchase
- Carapace Armor Optional wargear purchase
- Medallion Crimson Optional wargear purchase

- Senior Officer Possibly optional upgrade - technically, the 3.5 Command Squad only requires an Officer, which could be Junior/Senior/Heroic Senior. I can't recall off the top of my head if there was a requirement to have an HQ Command Squad be Senior/Heroic Senior as opposed to Junior.
- Refractor Field Optional wargear purchase
- Plasma Pistol Optional wargear purchase
- Power Sword Optional wargear purchase
- Frag Grenades Optional wargear purchase

Officers, per the 3.5 'dex, only come with a laspistol and close combat weapon. Their only native special rules are being an Independent Character who can let nearby units use his Ld score for relevant tests (so long as the Officer isn't Pinned/in CC/Falling Back). Anything extra, literally anything at all, is something paid for using points and chosen deliberately by the player. Also, the armory allows for ~100pts of upgrades for Senior Officers and ~50pts of upgrades for any other model that has access, and some of the options are locked into specific units (Force Weapons can only be taken by Sanctioned Psykers, but Power Weapons can be taken by Officers/Storm Trooper Sgts/Priests/Rough Rider Sgts, and a Bolt Pistol can be taken by anyone). Thus, there are some limitations, but generally you are free to take whatever you please (or not, if you'd rather save the points). I'll post screenshots of the 3.5 armory/unit sheet in a spoiler below for reference.

Now, your examples:

- Senior Officer Baked into the unit, cannot be removed; also, only exists to modify VoC slightly and/or do keyword stuff
- Voice of Command Baked into the unit, cannot be removed
- Refractor Field Baked into the unit; cannot be removed
- Chainsword Technically optional wargear purchase, though it is free
- Plasma Pistol Optional wargear purchase
- Order of the Iron Star of Mordian (Relic) Technically optional wargear purchase, though it is free
- Iron Discipline (Warlord Trait) Optional choice, though it is free

- Senior Officer Baked into the unit, cannot be removed; also, only exists to modify VoC slightly and/or do keyword stuff
- Voice of Command Baked into the unit; cannot be removed
- Refractor Field Baked into the unit; cannot be removed
- Power Sword Optional wargear purchase
- Bolt Pistol Optional wargear purchase
- Mamorph Tuskblade (Relic) Technically optional wargear upgrade, though it is free
- Old Grudges (Warlord Trait) Optional choice, though it is free

So a little under half of the things you listed for your choices aren't actually choices - you get them whether you want them or not, and you can't give them up for something else. I think you're right to chide Unit for ignoring Warlord Traits, but I'm not sure those are exactly 1:1 since you get them for free and I don't think you can choose not to take one. Also, outside of Relics/Warlord traits, you don't have any wargear choices that aren't weapons, and a good number of the Relics/Warlord Traits are locked behind <Regiment> keywords (ie. you can't have your Mordian or Armageddon CC wear not!Terminator Armor regardless of what yourdude's headcanon is, only Vostroyans get that). That, I think, is the crux of the matter - a lot of what you choose is either "must take 1 of: ..." or just a weapon. You can't give your Platoon Commander an Honorifica Imperialis to commemorate that time he fought a Daemon Prince to a standstill for that crucial turn you needed to bring up reinforcements - that option does not exist.

PS - I'm not in the camp that all upgrades MUST be paid for with points, I'm fine with certain choices being limited in other ways (ie. Relics being 0-1 outside of Stratagems/Special Characters). The point (fnar fnar) is that the 3.5 dex allows you to choose to pay those points to make the character as you want them to be - you have to actively choose to make them a Heroic Senior Officer as opposed to them just being a Heroic Senior Officer, same as everyone else's.

Edit: forgot the last few descriptions

 auticus wrote:
Dunno without a poll, but the groups I am in that regularly get new 40k players switching over give a lot of other reasons for enjoying the game as well!

Oh, it's a great game, but it's historically been one of those that the responses I got until the KS were all about how either everything needed to be special ordered because it was hard to find stores with regular stock and/ or complaints about how everything was metal.

nou wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
I mean yes, i 100% agree.
I think the best thing you can do, and players like us, is basically fall back to older editions.
My group of friends basically play HH, or 7th (Which is honestly just the same thing) And because 7th is "dead" you have a lot more flexibility to alter rules and house rule things.

[...]

The room to make "Your dudes" in the idea of customization and kitting out is very much by the wayside, because there is no room for errors in modern 40k else you get stomped.

Best thing like i said, fall back to older editions, and play the games that are more fun and interesting and have a few wild cards rather then the cookie cutter table/ matches we have now.

The best thing about falling back to old edition is that since you are already stepping out of "the meta" and "only official and most current rules" attitude, all sorts of gentleman agreements and experiments are possible. My group stayed with 7th, we had it heavily houseruled already when 8th hit, but then we just went crazy with throwing ideas for further customisation and in the end we now play an AA, d12 spinoff.

And while having "your dudes" is great, having "your dudes in the game you own" is even greater. But it hinges on having actual hobby friends instead of hobby acquiantances, so I understand that it is not an avenue everyone can take.

Indeed, that is what our group did-we use 5th as the core rules set with a few house rules imported from other compatible editions and players use their favorite dex from 3rd-7th so the games are FUN. that is the most important part.

kodos wrote:there are those that have learned, they are just not working for GW any more

so each time you have new people, with new ideas that need to learn from scratch, and as soon they have, they leave for different reasons

for OPs question

One Page Rules is the game, 8th Edition wanted to be but was not executed well and changed mid-edition to be something different
(the minimum core rules with additional army rules etc), so for this kind of game, just stick with the original idea (OPR) GW failed to copy

for the current version of the game, GW just don't know what the game should be, they just know what they want from the game

they want it to be something that sells models and books
they want it to be a strong IP all people recognize even if they don't play or read the books
they want it to be casual and fun with "winning" being not important
they want to control the event/tournament scene to avoid that those do their own thing (as "we don't need GW to play 40k tournaments and make our own version of the game" during 5th-7th)
they want it to be a skirmish game so new people can start small, but also large so people can use they whole collection (or buy more to play against people with large armies)

and the current version of 40k is the result of trying to achieve everything at once

GWs current staff do not even understand the 40K universe or have the passion the original designers had, and especially not their humor (orks were originally modeled after football hooligans after all). Andy chambers went freelance a long time ago (after 5th ed) and it shows both by what has happened to GW and what he has made for other companies in that time. then there is Rick Priestley, "Rick left Games Workshop in 2009, complaining that the corporate culture had grown too focused on sales and no longer cared about innovation in game design. He is now co-owner of Warlord Games"

ETC...

Sim-Life wrote:

 oni wrote:


Mike Brandt = The new Matt Ward.

I sincerely wish GW had a rules writer as passionate about the game and writing rules for it as Ward. His armies had power level issues but they were fun, dynamic, had imaginative and fluffy special rules and were actually interesting to build different lists for. If GW made the surprise announcement that Ward wrote the new Tyranid codex I'd be back to the game in a heartbeat.

So, you miss George Lucas yet? LOL it is kind of like they warned the Star Wars fans that complained about the prequal movies when Disney bought the franchise (and then destroyed it).

auticus wrote:Dunno without a poll, but the groups I am in that regularly get new 40k players switching over give a lot of other reasons for enjoying the game as well!

We are also getting people jumping ship to other games who are sick of what GW is doing. we are enjoying a surge in battletech players, and warmachine players in a very positive direction.

I agree that there are fewer options for Officers than in previous Editions but I do want to make a couple more points I had in hindsight.
As someone else said earlier, how many Wargear choices in previous Editions were actually a "choice"? I mean Unit put Refractor Fields on both their Officer examples and now they're not optional, it's suddenly a problem? But it's also not just about auto-selects, it's about redundancy. Take, for example, the Legion Astartes Praetor (I'm using a HH example because people seem to like using it as an example of "choice" and "narrative"). Praetors can take Power Weapons, Charnable Sabres, or a Paragon Blade as similar weapons. The Paragon Blade is so far ahead of the other two options in terms of use that I genuinely don't think I've ever seen people arm a Praetor with either, even at narrative events. Same with the Invuln save options. Nobody is taking a Combat Shield or a Refractor Field when an Iron Halo is just objectively the better option. At 150pts my Praetor has a 2+ save (Artificer Armour is auto-included btw), a 4+ Invuln, and a weapon that is +1 Strength, AP 2, and Instant Death on a wound roll of a 6. At best a Praetor is going to be taking something like a Thunder Hammer instead of the Blade or Terminator Armour instead of an Iron Halo, and even then it depends on the pattern of Terminator Armour. There are a lot of options to take but about 60% are just worthless for the unit in question.
Could certain units do with at least a couple more options? Maybe. But how many would be options just for the sake of options?
Also yeah, you can choose not to have Warlord Traits or Relics but it still falls into the illusion of choice thing. You can't escape the illusion.

 Gert wrote:

Spoiler:

 waefre_1 wrote:

Let's dig in a little on this, shall we?

- Heroic Senior Officer Optional upgrade
- Trademark Item (Golden Skull-Cane) Optional wargear purchase
- Bionics Optional wargear purchase
- Plasma Pistol (Master Crafted) Optional wargear purchase with additional optional upgrade
- Storm Bolter Optional wargear purchase
- Refractor Field Optional wargear purchase
- Carapace Armor Optional wargear purchase
- Medallion Crimson Optional wargear purchase

- Senior Officer Possibly optional upgrade - technically, the 3.5 Command Squad only requires an Officer, which could be Junior/Senior/Heroic Senior. I can't recall off the top of my head if there was a requirement to have an HQ Command Squad be Senior/Heroic Senior as opposed to Junior.
- Refractor Field Optional wargear purchase
- Plasma Pistol Optional wargear purchase
- Power Sword Optional wargear purchase
- Frag Grenades Optional wargear purchase

Officers, per the 3.5 'dex, only come with a laspistol and close combat weapon. Their only native special rules are being an Independent Character who can let nearby units use his Ld score for relevant tests (so long as the Officer isn't Pinned/in CC/Falling Back). Anything extra, literally anything at all, is something paid for using points and chosen deliberately by the player. Also, the armory allows for ~100pts of upgrades for Senior Officers and ~50pts of upgrades for any other model that has access, and some of the options are locked into specific units (Force Weapons can only be taken by Sanctioned Psykers, but Power Weapons can be taken by Officers/Storm Trooper Sgts/Priests/Rough Rider Sgts, and a Bolt Pistol can be taken by anyone). Thus, there are some limitations, but generally you are free to take whatever you please (or not, if you'd rather save the points). I'll post screenshots of the 3.5 armory/unit sheet in a spoiler below for reference.

Now, your examples:

- Senior Officer Baked into the unit, cannot be removed; also, only exists to modify VoC slightly and/or do keyword stuff
- Voice of Command Baked into the unit, cannot be removed
- Refractor Field Baked into the unit; cannot be removed
- Chainsword Technically optional wargear purchase, though it is free
- Plasma Pistol Optional wargear purchase
- Order of the Iron Star of Mordian (Relic) Technically optional wargear purchase, though it is free
- Iron Discipline (Warlord Trait) Optional choice, though it is free

- Senior Officer Baked into the unit, cannot be removed; also, only exists to modify VoC slightly and/or do keyword stuff
- Voice of Command Baked into the unit; cannot be removed
- Refractor Field Baked into the unit; cannot be removed
- Power Sword Optional wargear purchase
- Bolt Pistol Optional wargear purchase
- Mamorph Tuskblade (Relic) Technically optional wargear upgrade, though it is free
- Old Grudges (Warlord Trait) Optional choice, though it is free

So a little under half of the things you listed for your choices aren't actually choices - you get them whether you want them or not, and you can't give them up for something else. I think you're right to chide Unit for ignoring Warlord Traits, but I'm not sure those are exactly 1:1 since you get them for free and I don't think you can choose not to take one. Also, outside of Relics/Warlord traits, you don't have any wargear choices that aren't weapons, and a good number of the Relics/Warlord Traits are locked behind <Regiment> keywords (ie. you can't have your Mordian or Armageddon CC wear not!Terminator Armor regardless of what yourdude's headcanon is, only Vostroyans get that). That, I think, is the crux of the matter - a lot of what you choose is either "must take 1 of: ..." or just a weapon. You can't give your Platoon Commander an Honorifica Imperialis to commemorate that time he fought a Daemon Prince to a standstill for that crucial turn you needed to bring up reinforcements - that option does not exist.

I agree that there are fewer options for Officers than in previous Editions but I do want to make a couple more points I had in hindsight.
As someone else said earlier, how many Wargear choices in previous Editions were actually a "choice"? I mean Unit put Refractor Fields on both their Officer examples and now they're not optional, it's suddenly a problem? But it's also not just about auto-selects, it's about redundancy. Take, for example, the Legion Astartes Praetor (I'm using a HH example because people seem to like using it as an example of "choice" and "narrative"). Praetors can take Power Weapons, Charnable Sabres, or a Paragon Blade as similar weapons. The Paragon Blade is so far ahead of the other two options in terms of use that I genuinely don't think I've ever seen people arm a Praetor with either, even at narrative events. Same with the Invuln save options. Nobody is taking a Combat Shield or a Refractor Field when an Iron Halo is just objectively the better option. At 150pts my Praetor has a 2+ save (Artificer Armour is auto-included btw), a 4+ Invuln, and a weapon that is +1 Strength, AP 2, and Instant Death on a wound roll of a 6. At best a Praetor is going to be taking something like a Thunder Hammer instead of the Blade or Terminator Armour instead of an Iron Halo, and even then it depends on the pattern of Terminator Armour. There are a lot of options to take but about 60% are just worthless for the unit in question.
Could certain units do with at least a couple more options? Maybe. But how many would be options just for the sake of options?
Also yeah, you can choose not to have Warlord Traits or Relics but it still falls into the illusion of choice thing. You can't escape the illusion.

 waefre_1 wrote:

Well, I'd say that the illusion is specific to whether the choice is meaningful, and the argument is that the choice at least existed. As Vipoid mentioned upthread, yes, there were dud options that didn't get picked, but you can't fix an option that doesn't exist. Maybe a piece of wargear is pointless now, but that could change in the future. Flat removing it because the rules are bad strikes me as equivalent to demolishing a rarely-used building at a school - yes, that is a way to solve the problem, but you could have found a different use for the building (wargear) instead, and now that it's demolished even that is no longer a possibility. It feels...defeatist, or lazy, I guess. More of a "Let's not even bother trying to make this work", you know?

From the perspective of streamlining (I really don't care if people think 8th did or did not streamline 40k, that was very clearly the intention), why keep options that aren't seeing use or don't offer much in the way of bonuses? I don't see how it's lazy to look at a unit entry and go "hmm nobody is taking half of these, why do we even bother?". It's just common sense. And just as you argue it could be useful in the future, the crux of this specific discussion is based around a Codex from last Edition. We have no idea what changes are going to be made to Guard so I can just as easily use the much-hated "wait and see".

Also, I wouldn't say that Refractor Fields no longer being an optional choice is a problem per se, just that it's emblematic of the loss of flavor that comes with the loss of options. I'm running a Kanak Skull Takers list and the Warchief wouldn't trust such techno-sorcery? Tough gak, here's a Refractor Field! I'm running an armored list where the "Platoon" commander doesn't need (and possibly wouldn't have earned) a Refractor Field since he's just an attachment of mechanized infantry subordinate to the Tank Commander? Feth off, he gets one anyways (and no, I can't give it up so I can buy extra pintle mounts or dozer blades, either)! There's something to be said for allowing people to make suboptimal choices, either as a means of challenging their skill on the tabletop or because they have a specific theme in mind and would rather stick to it even if it hurts them.

They aren't Wargear though, it's a special rule. You can literally just choose to not use it. You're not paying for it or anything. Have you actually used the 8th Ed Guard Codex?

As for the redundancy, that's a fair point. However, a lot of those armory options weren't just "this sword has D2, this sword has AP-1, and this sword wins the game if you have it at deployment" - they offered special rules or exceptions to rules so that you could change how you played. Take the Medallion Crimson - you can be a bit more aggressive with the bearer since they can eat an Instant Death attack and not instantly die to it. The Macharian Cross has a cognate in the Dagger of Tu'Sakh, but you can take more than one Macharian Cross in an army, allowing you some more latitude in the redeployment special rule. Yes, not all of them are necessarily worth the points they cost, but again, you could at least take them and try to make them work.

And that's where Relics come in. All of those things you've described are filled by the Relic options. 9th Ed Codexes also seem to be getting a lot more Relics than their 8th counterparts with each Subfaction getting ine and there also being about 9/10 generic ones. Plus whatever else gets added in any Army Supplements. The only thing you need to worry about is that they might be locked to <Officer> models or <Commisar> models. Hell, Guard also have Tank Aces for Gods sake. There is plenty of customisation in the game.

 Gert wrote:
There is plenty of customisation in the game.

I disagree. Strenuously.

Not saying earlier editions were perfect about it, certainly, but they were BETTER. And the trends GW are following indicate it's getting worse, not better.

Gert wrote:
I agree that there are fewer options for Officers than in previous Editions but I do want to make a couple more points I had in hindsight.
As someone else said earlier, how many Wargear choices in previous Editions were actually a "choice"? I mean Unit put Refractor Fields on both their Officer examples and now they're not optional, it's suddenly a problem? But it's also not just about auto-selects, it's about redundancy. Take, for example, the Legion Astartes Praetor (I'm using a HH example because people seem to like using it as an example of "choice" and "narrative"). Praetors can take Power Weapons, Charnable Sabres, or a Paragon Blade as similar weapons. The Paragon Blade is so far ahead of the other two options in terms of use that I genuinely don't think I've ever seen people arm a Praetor with either, even at narrative events. Same with the Invuln save options. Nobody is taking a Combat Shield or a Refractor Field when an Iron Halo is just objectively the better option. At 150pts my Praetor has a 2+ save (Artificer Armour is auto-included btw), a 4+ Invuln, and a weapon that is +1 Strength, AP 2, and Instant Death on a wound roll of a 6. At best a Praetor is going to be taking something like a Thunder Hammer instead of the Blade or Terminator Armour instead of an Iron Halo, and even then it depends on the pattern of Terminator Armour. There are a lot of options to take but about 60% are just worthless for the unit in question.
Could certain units do with at least a couple more options? Maybe. But how many would be options just for the sake of options?
Also yeah, you can choose not to have Warlord Traits or Relics but it still falls into the illusion of choice thing. You can't escape the illusion.

I think you're pulling a "whatabout" here. Option redundancy sucks and should be streamlined, I agree, but there are meaningful choices in my illustration that each do something unique and different. And having ~6 different warlord trait choices (about 2 of which are useful) and about 7 different relic choices (once you've chosen your subfaction and with only about 3 or 4 useful ones) doesn't leave much diversity. One Praetorian army will look very similar to one Armageddon army in terms of the "your dudes" effect, compared to 3.5ed, and officer wargear is only the tip of the iceberg.

Gert wrote:

 waefre_1 wrote:

Well, I'd say that the illusion is specific to whether the choice is meaningful, and the argument is that the choice at least existed. As Vipoid mentioned upthread, yes, there were dud options that didn't get picked, but you can't fix an option that doesn't exist. Maybe a piece of wargear is pointless now, but that could change in the future. Flat removing it because the rules are bad strikes me as equivalent to demolishing a rarely-used building at a school - yes, that is a way to solve the problem, but you could have found a different use for the building (wargear) instead, and now that it's demolished even that is no longer a possibility. It feels...defeatist, or lazy, I guess. More of a "Let's not even bother trying to make this work", you know?

From the perspective of streamlining (I really don't care if people think 8th did or did not streamline 40k, that was very clearly the intention), why keep options that aren't seeing use or don't offer much in the way of bonuses? I don't see how it's lazy to look at a unit entry and go "hmm nobody is taking half of these, why do we even bother?". It's just common sense. And just as you argue it could be useful in the future, the crux of this specific discussion is based around a Codex from last Edition. We have no idea what changes are going to be made to Guard so I can just as easily use the much-hated "wait and see".

Also, I wouldn't say that Refractor Fields no longer being an optional choice is a problem per se, just that it's emblematic of the loss of flavor that comes with the loss of options. I'm running a Kanak Skull Takers list and the Warchief wouldn't trust such techno-sorcery? Tough gak, here's a Refractor Field! I'm running an armored list where the "Platoon" commander doesn't need (and possibly wouldn't have earned) a Refractor Field since he's just an attachment of mechanized infantry subordinate to the Tank Commander? Feth off, he gets one anyways (and no, I can't give it up so I can buy extra pintle mounts or dozer blades, either)! There's something to be said for allowing people to make suboptimal choices, either as a means of challenging their skill on the tabletop or because they have a specific theme in mind and would rather stick to it even if it hurts them.

They aren't Wargear though, it's a special rule. You can literally just choose to not use it. You're not paying for it or anything. Have you actually used the 8th Ed Guard Codex?

Presumably, it isn't Free though. If you wanted to use those 5-15 points elsewhere (say, to buy your troopers Warrior Weapons as they're Kanak Skull Takers - not that you can do THAT in 9th either, but not's let get facts get in the way of arguments). If you're literally saying a 5+ invulnerable save contributes 0pts to the officer's points cost, I hope you don't mind it being on all my men there either - obviously, it didn't change the officer's base cost so why would it change anyone's? The officers are more valuable than the men.

It's disingenuous to suggest it's "free" just because the cost is baked into the character.

Gert wrote:

As for the redundancy, that's a fair point. However, a lot of those armory options weren't just "this sword has D2, this sword has AP-1, and this sword wins the game if you have it at deployment" - they offered special rules or exceptions to rules so that you could change how you played. Take the Medallion Crimson - you can be a bit more aggressive with the bearer since they can eat an Instant Death attack and not instantly die to it. The Macharian Cross has a cognate in the Dagger of Tu'Sakh, but you can take more than one Macharian Cross in an army, allowing you some more latitude in the redeployment special rule. Yes, not all of them are necessarily worth the points they cost, but again, you could at least take them and try to make them work.

And that's where Relics come in. All of those things you've described are filled by the Relic options. 9th Ed Codexes also seem to be getting a lot more Relics than their 8th counterparts with each Subfaction getting ine and there also being about 9/10 generic ones. Plus whatever else gets added in any Army Supplements. The only thing you need to worry about is that they might be locked to <Officer> models or <Commisar> models. Hell, Guard also have Tank Aces for Gods sake. There is plenty of customisation in the game.

The Guard codex has 24 relics between it and its supplements (Pariah and Cadia). It still doesn't let anyone do "your dudes" as they're locked behind some weird restrictions. Want a Techpriest Enginseer with a data-reader that regenerates Command Points (Kurov's Aquila)? Too bad - turns out your regiment's Tech-Priests aren't allowed to be cool. Want a Primaris Psyker with Manmorph Tuskblade, representing a weapon he took from his homeworld before he left for his sanctioning? Too bad, that's never happened to any psyker in the galaxy, idiot. The problem with relics is that they aren't really Your Dudes.

Plus, there's not that many choices with the relics. There's 24 "choices" but, there's like, 6 that anyone can remember off the top of their head.

Lastly, the Guard had Tank Aces in 3.5 as well, replete with something like 24 doctrine choices (that could do everything from seeing a tank issued with anti-tank shells to having its hull blessed by the Machine God so alien weapons couldn't affect it). Nowadays? A Russ can have 6 options, one of which gives it a 2+ save to replace its existing 2+ save. Oh, and you can only have two, so I hope you regiment isn't made up of mostly veteran tankers or anything. Oh, and one of them requires your Warlord Trait slot, so I hope you weren't differentiating between commanders with that 1 Warlord Trait you get.

 Gert wrote:
From the perspective of streamlining (I really don't care if people think 8th did or did not streamline 40k, that was very clearly the intention), why keep options that aren't seeing use or don't offer much in the way of bonuses? I don't see how it's lazy to look at a unit entry and go "hmm nobody is taking half of these, why do we even bother?". It's just common sense. And just as you argue it could be useful in the future, the crux of this specific discussion is based around a Codex from last Edition. We have no idea what changes are going to be made to Guard so I can just as easily use the much-hated "wait and see".

If GW cared enough to come up with the options, then they should care enough to try to make them work. If they don't care enough to try to make them work, why bother including them to begin with? I work in IT, I write scripts to automate tasks and solve problems. If I write a script and it fails, and I immediately throw my hands up and say "Welp, script's broke, can't make it work" and give up, am I not being lazy?

They aren't Wargear though, it's a special rule. You can literally just choose to not use it. You're not paying for it or anything. Have you actually used the 8th Ed Guard Codex?

Yes? They may not have an explicit cost in the 'dex somewhere, that doesn't mean they're free. Make the Refractor Field a piece of wargear again and the Company Commander becomes $WARGEAR_COST points cheaper. That's what they did to the Leman Russ - take out the main gun and make the base chassis that much cheaper.

And that's where Relics come in. All of those things you've described are filled by the Relic options. 9th Ed Codexes also seem to be getting a lot more Relics than their 8th counterparts with each Subfaction getting ine and there also being about 9/10 generic ones. Plus whatever else gets added in any Army Supplements. The only thing you need to worry about is that they might be locked to <Officer> models or <Commisar> models. Hell, Guard also have Tank Aces for Gods sake. There is plenty of customisation in the game.

First off, no, they aren't all filled by Relic options. Second, certain Relics are also locked into certain <Regiment>s, and with the general trend away from multiple detachments/souping, that means that you're never playing with the full set of options (even if you do go with multiple detachments, you can't give your Warlord Pietrov's Mk45 AND a Mamorph Tuskblade since they can't be both <Catachan> and <Valhallan> at the same time). There's a distinct difference between "only Priests can carry a holy relic" and "only Priests from a specific homeworld can wield a holy relic".

 kodos wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Telling "fluff hammer" players to feth off and find another game (or edition) to play is peak DakkaDakka.

Maybe we should do it, lets all the fluff-hammer players move to another game and see how long it takes for the rest to follow

GW could literally write, "Warhammer is for everyone... except fluffplayers. You will not be missed." And the overwhelming majority would stick around.

To be fair the same would go if they wrote that about competitive players too.

Toofast wrote:
If you aren't playing in tournaments, why does the tournament meta affect your garagehammer games?

For many people the way they play 40k is via pick-up games at gaming stores. These, by their very definition, are designed to be done in an ad-hoc/on the fly style method, meaning as little time spend organising them as possible. For that reason, there is a level of standardisation that is inherent in pick-up games in order for them to run smoothly and quickly. Tournament rules, meta, and changes filter through to the general populace and become 'standard' for pick-up games. It's why so many thought 'Rule of 3' was a general 40k rule in 8th when it wasn't, and why the recent changes to Patrols, despite "only" being for Nachmund Tournament missions, will filter through to regular 40k pick-up games.

That's why tournaments matter to more casual gamers, because more casual gamers are playing pick-up games more than anything else, especially in the US.

How many times must this be explained?

 Daedalus81 wrote:
As noted above - I guarantee you those old options weren't all good picks. Huskblade is either incredible or trash depending on when Eternal Warrior came out and what people used.

Put simply: Who cares if its good or not? Why is that the determining factor whether something gets to exist?