Does anyone find kit restrictions fun?

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.

**Dudeface**

Gene St. Ealer wrote:
Blackie wrote:
vipoid wrote:

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

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

Harlequins' weapons were all very samey, and the kit doesn't cover every possible combination, so consolidation is a really good thing for them.

Nah dude, they were not samey, I said this a page ago (and many other times on dakka but nobody cares about Harlequins except for considering them Le OP Menace). In 8th, yeah they were bland as hell. But in 7th:

Harlequin's Kiss: One attack at S6 AP2, and 6s to wound have Instant Death
Harlequin's Caress: 6s to hit autowound/glance at AP2
Harlequin's Embrace: d3 Hammer of Wrath attacks at S6

Differentiated, unique, and interesting. Don't forget it!

Looking at that, I don't think I'd consider embrace for anything, HoW attacks were meh at best. I kinda feel the caress is the better "go to" with the kiss being something you'd splash in.

Edit: depending on access to rerolls decides it, if you have decent rerolls anywhere the caress, if not the kiss. Different? Yes. Are they all valid use cases and you'd keep a mix of them? I dare say not.

**Blackie**

That doesn't seem differentiated, unique and interesting to me. At all.

For different, unique and interesting I mean profiles such as chainsword, power sword and thunder hammer. Or choppas, big choppas and power klaws. All weapons with a different role.

**Gene St. Ealer**

Blackie wrote:
That doesn't seem differentiated, unique and interesting to me. At all.

For different, unique and interesting I mean profiles such as chainsword, power sword and thunder hammer. Or choppas, big choppas and power klaws. All weapons with a different role.

Chainsword = anti-chaff
Power sword = anti-elite
Thunder Hammer = anti-vehicle

Kiss = anti-elite
Caress = anti-vehicle
Embrace = anti-chaff

oh yeah, those varying versions of S and AP are much more interesting than the Harlequin way of doing it. Uh huh.

**VladimirHerzog**

vipoid wrote:
This, presumably, is for Imperial/SM factions.

Given the existence of stuff like Witchblades, Agonisers etc., I imagine Xeno factions would have more unusual weapon selections.

Agoniser is just a power weapons with poison
witchblades? (do you mean venom blades?) are just a basic CCW with poison.
Archite glaive : heavy ccw
demiklaives : heavy ccw
electrowhip : power weapon with poison

most weapons can be merged into these categories. I'd argue that for drukhari specifically you could give them a rule that puts poison on all their weapons. And keep stuff like flesh gauntlets/shardnets/ichor injector as bespoke weapons since they are truly unique

**Gene St. Ealer**

This is a slippery slope. One of the biggest appeals of Xenos factions are their esotericism. No thanks, I don't want everything to be homogenized. I'll be getting off the train if that happens.

**VladimirHerzog**

Gene St. Ealer wrote:
This is a slippery slope. One of the biggest appeals of Xenos factions are their esotericism. No thanks, I don't want everything to be homogenized. I'll be getting off the train if that happens.

I agree, most of my arguments apply to Imperial factions honestly.

But do keep in mind that my suggestion of having 3 groups of weapons encompassing everything does not prevent the existence of specific weapons that arent in that list (lighning claws for example)

**catbarf**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
catbarf wrote:
Shuffling those stats around doesn't meaningfully distinguish melee weapons, so there's really no mechanical need for the multitude of melee weapon profiles that currently exist.
And herein lies where I seem to differ to most of you.

You're absolutely correct that there is no need for the multitude of melee weapons given the way their rules work - as much as I may want the variety, I cannot in good faith argue that they should exist based upon how their rules are written - but where most of you see this as a reason to consolidate and simplify (or downright kneecap in Herzog's case - you sure you ain't Jervis in disguise?), I prefer the opposite: They should create that need.

I want these weapons to have a reason to exist outside of shuffling stats. I dislike the way they've done Tyranid Warriors because they've made a bunch of unequal weapons equal in points, and this is terrible game design (they just did the same thing for Guard Infantry squads). This is why Power Level, despite one particular Dakkanaut's insistence to the opposite, is an inadequate system compared to points*, because it creates zero distinction between base options and the best options. You lose nothing by taking the best options, so why bother with anything else?

The set up for power weapons is, generally, the same right now. With few exceptions, they generally all cost the same, and shuffle the Strength, AP and Damage around a bit, and given that they all cost the same and there is no specific points-based advantage or disadvantage to any of them, you just either take the one that is generally the most effective in most circumstances, or just the one you like.

I started in 2nd Edition, where a Power Axe was different to a Power Sword. We then moved into 3rd when suddenly everything was a "Power Weapon", except for Fists, Thunder Hammers and Chainfists (and Lightning Claws). I felt this was going too far in the opposite way. It was removing too much of what made differing load outs interesting. But what we have now with power swords/axes/mauls, is a bunch of weapon distinctions without any real difference.

But people pointed out what the various Tyranid bio-weapons were meant to do, and how they fulfilled different roles. I would want that to be the goal, not reducing everything to bland generic "Accursed Weapon" because we're too lazy to come up with a meaningful alternative.

I actually agree with you in that I would be happier with seeing different weapons distinguished from one another rather than what we currently have. But I'm not sure how to accomplish that, given the mechanical redundancy that currently exists. Looking at different target profiles, the niches boil down to:
-Anti-chaff (need high volume of attacks at D1)
-Anti-elite (need AP and/or D2)
-Anti-vehicles/monsters (need a combo of high S, AP, and/or D2+)

And... that's about it, as far as the core stats are concerned. Beyond that it's just rearranging numbers, so weapons of comparable power tend to produce comparable outcomes. So how would you go about making, say, a power axe different from a power sword? Are there special abilities that you feel could be layered on to differentiate them?

I mean, if you're taking how Tyranid weapons used to work as an ideal reference point, that was fundamentally 3rd Ed's consolidation in pure form, as weapons simply conferred special abilities to the bearer rather than minor stat adjustments. There weren't many of them, and the rules treated different morphologies of the same type identically, and I would argue that that simplicity was key to it functioning well as a system. Now every different type of Tyranid claw has its own stats to remember, and there's a lot of functional redundancy. It could be worse, though- at least we don't have Boneswords, Bonesabres, and Bonedaggers to choose from on a single model.

The other issue, which relates back to the OP, is that having a squad of 5 with all different melee weapons makes melee resolution tedious, and doesn't permit specializing the squad into any particular niche (at best, you pick casualties based on who's least likely to be useful). I prefer if squads can be armed identically, whether that be through generic profiles or just nixing the kit-based restrictions, because it makes the game easier to play.

**vipoid**

VladimirHerzog wrote:
vipoid wrote:
This, presumably, is for Imperial/SM factions.

Given the existence of stuff like Witchblades, Agonisers etc., I imagine Xeno factions would have more unusual weapon selections.

Agoniser is just a power weapons with poison
witchblades? (do you mean venom blades?) are just a basic CCW with poison.

I'm surprised you felt the need to to ask which blade I meant by 'witchblade'. I would have thought which blade I was referring to was obvious. Granted, if I had misspelled it as 'Wychblade', then I could certainly see the confusion in which blade I was referring to. However, when I said 'Witchblade' I was in fact referring to the literal 'Witchblade' of Warlock/Farseer fame.

Sorry, I'll stop this now.

VladimirHerzog wrote:

most weapons can be merged into these categories. I'd argue that for drukhari specifically you could give them a rule that puts poison on all their weapons. And keep stuff like flesh gauntlets/shardnets/ichor injector as bespoke weapons since they are truly unique

More seriously, putting poison onto everything would seem to have the opposite effect from what you're intending. Far from differentiating weapons, you'd instead be making them more same-y.

In 5th, an Archon could have a Venom Blade (Poison 2+), an Agoniser (Power Weapon, Always wounds on 4+) or a Huskblade (Power Weapon, any successful wounds inflict Instant Death). Adding the same Poison stat to all of them would surely only serve to diminish the differences between them? It would also diminish other possible differences (e.g. having weapons that wound against Leadership instead of Toughness).

**VladimirHerzog**

vipoid wrote:

I'm surprised you felt the need to to ask which blade I meant by 'witchblade'. I would have thought which blade I was referring to was obvious. Granted, if I had misspelled it as 'Wychblade', then I could certainly see the confusion in which blade I was referring to. However, when I said 'Witchblade' I was in fact referring to the literal 'Witchblade' of Warlock/Farseer fame.
s that wound against Leadership instead of Toughness).

oh lol, i got hard jebaited and thought you were talking about Drukhari because of the agoniser mention

Automatically Appended Next Post:

vipoid wrote:

More seriously, putting poison onto everything would seem to have the opposite effect from what you're intending. Far from differentiating weapons, you'd instead be making them more same-y.

In 5th, an Archon could have a Venom Blade (Poison 2+), an Agoniser (Power Weapon, Always wounds on 4+) or a Huskblade (Power Weapon, any successful wounds inflict Instant Death). Adding the same Poison stat to all of them would surely only serve to diminish the differences between them? It would also diminish other possible differences (e.g. having weapons that wound against Leadership instead of Toughness).

yeah, i already realised after reflection that my suggestion was mostly for Imperial armies

**NinthMusketeer**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
A lot of people responded to my last post here, generally all roughly saying the same sort of thing. Took catbarf (unsurprisingly) to really hit the nail on the head though with this:

catbarf wrote:
Shuffling those stats around doesn't meaningfully distinguish melee weapons, so there's really no mechanical need for the multitude of melee weapon profiles that currently exist.
And herein lies where I seem to differ to most of you.

You're absolutely correct that there is no need for the multitude of melee weapons given the way their rules work - as much as I may want the variety, I cannot in good faith argue that they should exist based upon how their rules are written - but where most of you see this as a reason to consolidate and simplify (or downright kneecap in Herzog's case - you sure you ain't Jervis in disguise?), I prefer the opposite: They should create that need.

I want these weapons to have a reason to exist outside of shuffling stats. I dislike the way they've done Tyranid Warriors because they've made a bunch of unequal weapons equal in points, and this is terrible game design (they just did the same thing for Guard Infantry squads). This is why Power Level, despite one particular Dakkanaut's insistence to the opposite, is an inadequate system compared to points*, because it creates zero distinction between base options and the best options. You lose nothing by taking the best options, so why bother with anything else?

The set up for power weapons is, generally, the same right now. With few exceptions, they generally all cost the same, and shuffle the Strength, AP and Damage around a bit, and given that they all cost the same and there is no specific points-based advantage or disadvantage to any of them, you just either take the one that is generally the most effective in most circumstances, or just the one you like.

I started in 2nd Edition, where a Power Axe was different to a Power Sword. We then moved into 3rd when suddenly everything was a "Power Weapon", except for Fists, Thunder Hammers and Chainfists (and Lightning Claws). I felt this was going too far in the opposite way. It was removing too much of what made differing load outs interesting. But what we have now with power swords/axes/mauls, is a bunch of weapon distinctions without any real difference.

But people pointed out what the various Tyranid bio-weapons were meant to do, and how they fulfilled different roles. I would want that to be the goal, not reducing everything to bland generic "Accursed Weapon" because we're too lazy to come up with a meaningful alternative.

FWIW at least some of us do see your point, the difference is we see enough variety present outside of power weapons that we feel they don't need to be further diversified. I see that accursed weapons are coming in alongside CCW, chainblade, heavy chainblade, lightning claws, power fists, chainfists, and thunder hammers, and I think that is a solid spread of options which doesn't need any additional categories.

**TheBestBucketHead**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
A lot of people responded to my last post here, generally all roughly saying the same sort of thing. Took catbarf (unsurprisingly) to really hit the nail on the head though with this:

catbarf wrote:
Shuffling those stats around doesn't meaningfully distinguish melee weapons, so there's really no mechanical need for the multitude of melee weapon profiles that currently exist.
And herein lies where I seem to differ to most of you.

You're absolutely correct that there is no need for the multitude of melee weapons given the way their rules work - as much as I may want the variety, I cannot in good faith argue that they should exist based upon how their rules are written - but where most of you see this as a reason to consolidate and simplify (or downright kneecap in Herzog's case - you sure you ain't Jervis in disguise?), I prefer the opposite: They should create that need.

I want these weapons to have a reason to exist outside of shuffling stats. I dislike the way they've done Tyranid Warriors because they've made a bunch of unequal weapons equal in points, and this is terrible game design (they just did the same thing for Guard Infantry squads). This is why Power Level, despite one particular Dakkanaut's insistence to the opposite, is an inadequate system compared to points*, because it creates zero distinction between base options and the best options. You lose nothing by taking the best options, so why bother with anything else?

The set up for power weapons is, generally, the same right now. With few exceptions, they generally all cost the same, and shuffle the Strength, AP and Damage around a bit, and given that they all cost the same and there is no specific points-based advantage or disadvantage to any of them, you just either take the one that is generally the most effective in most circumstances, or just the one you like.

I started in 2nd Edition, where a Power Axe was different to a Power Sword. We then moved into 3rd when suddenly everything was a "Power Weapon", except for Fists, Thunder Hammers and Chainfists (and Lightning Claws). I felt this was going too far in the opposite way. It was removing too much of what made differing load outs interesting. But what we have now with power swords/axes/mauls, is a bunch of weapon distinctions without any real difference.

But people pointed out what the various Tyranid bio-weapons were meant to do, and how they fulfilled different roles. I would want that to be the goal, not reducing everything to bland generic "Accursed Weapon" because we're too lazy to come up with a meaningful alternative.

*No, this does not mean that points are perfect, or that points solve every problem, so please don't start that.

My only other war game is Infinity, so I have a limited perspective. In Infinity, quite a few melee weapons serve different roles, even if some are just straight upgrades or downgrades, usually for saving points or not.
There is a distinct difference between Electromagnetic CC Weapons and Explosive CC Weapons and AP CC Weapons and Vorpal CC weapons, and Para CC Weapons, and it all depends on what you need them to do. Vorpal is great at murderizing TAGs and Heavy Infantry, but its damage is low, so it is less efficient against less armored troops. AP CC weapons are the straight downgrade, but halve armor, and cost less, but the damage is based on the physical stat, like most CC weapons, meaning it can have a higher damage, and be more efficient against non TAG units. Electromagnetic CC weapons cause debuffs for TAGs and Heavy Infantry, and are a good weapon to use when you want to cut off orders from the Lieutenant, or just as a way to cause extra wounds against people with higher armor and lower BTS, as it affects BTS instead of Armor. Explosive/Double Action are just a good default cc weapon for taking out non TAGs and weaker Heavy Infantry. Each weapon serves a role, even if there's overlap, and some do their jobs better than the other ones in the group. Nourkias, for example, has an ability where he heals if he causes a wound. His Vorpal CC weapon kills instantly, so he only gets 1 wound back, regardless of how many wounds he causes. Alternatively, he could use his Electromagnetic CC weapon and potentially get 4 wounds back, bringing him up from 0 to 3, his max. It's not perfect, but it works.

**vipoid**

catbarf wrote:

I actually agree with you in that I would be happier with seeing different weapons distinguished from one another rather than what we currently have. But I'm not sure how to accomplish that, given the mechanical redundancy that currently exists. Looking at different target profiles, the niches boil down to:
-Anti-chaff (need high volume of attacks at D1)
-Anti-elite (need AP and/or D2)
-Anti-vehicles/monsters (need a combo of high S, AP, and/or D2+)

And... that's about it, as far as the core stats are concerned. Beyond that it's just rearranging numbers, so weapons of comparable power tend to produce comparable outcomes. So how would you go about making, say, a power axe different from a power sword? Are there special abilities that you feel could be layered on to differentiate them?

One thing that comes to mind is that weapons like Power Fists and Thunder Hammers could replicate the old I1 rule by saying 'a model can't fight with this weapon until all other models have already fought.' (Or whatever the exact wording is for Always Strikes Last.) Seems like it would be more impactful (and harder to mitigate) than a mere -1 to hit.

In terms of other abilities, Poison or Haywire-type abilities could be interesting for some Xeno factions to specialise without going straight into the chainsword/power weapon/power fist dynamic. The current issue with this is that, when these weapons exist at all, they tend not to represent meaningful choices. An Archon, for example, gets to choose between a poisoned weapon, another poisoned weapon, a power sword, and a power sword sidegrade. So, rather than being able to specialise as anti-infantry, anti-elite, anti-character, anti-vehicle or such, you've instead got 4 choices that all amount to basically the exact same thing. I've seen similar examples elsewhere, with poison weapons simply not existing as distinct or meaingful choices.

Honestly, though, I do struggle to think of many rules that could be used to meaningfully distinguish different weapons without just continuing the issue of one-upmanship (with special rules that ignore other special rules like invulnerable saves and/or FNP).

**Karol**

EviscerationPlague wrote:
I find consolidation of melee weapons pretty easy.
1. Basic ass CC weapon
2. Chainsword
3. Bladed Power Weapon (where Swords would go)
4. Heavy Power Weapon (where Axes AND Mauls can go)
5. Power Fist

Where do power staffs, power halabards or falchions go, and how is the falchion different from a power longsword? Are L.claws just two swords? For models that are armed with just one falchion, are they going to be the same as models armed with a single longsword?

What about armies that have great focus put on to their different melee weapons, to counter balance their lack of range options and range units? Will it be somehow adressed and most important will the points cost be adjusted, or will the weapon stay at the higher point cost, but same stats till a new codex comes out?

**VladimirHerzog**

Karol wrote:
and how is the falchion different from a power longsword?

theyre not, thats the whole point

**Karol**

They are different right now. Besides of course being a different type of weapon. With different lenght. Would a halabard be a slow weapon, the same as a thunder hammer, and suddenly force staff got x2 strenght? Would the staff keep its inv boosting stratagem? if yes then taking hammers or halabards would be stupid, unless point costs were kept different.

**VladimirHerzog**

Karol wrote:
They are different right now. Besides of course being a different type of weapon. With different lenght. Would a halabard be a slow weapon, the same as a thunder hammer, and suddenly force staff got x2 strenght? Would the staff keep its inv boosting stratagem? if yes then taking hammers or halabards would be stupid, unless point costs were kept different.

i'm not gonna bother explaining it to you since you've stated you're incapable of understanding theoreticals

**Karol**

Well they have to have a base in something. A blank removal of weapon types, and only for imperial factions seems odd.

And if it were to be done to marines, it would be done to GK too, because GK get affected by marine changes no matter, if they have or don't have the specific extra rules other loyalist marines have.

That is why I am asking the questions.

GK have 4 specific to them weapons. I am not talking about lore, where clearly a two handed hammer is something different then a staff with a powerfield generator. But pure mechanics. And stuff like GK and Strikes box is full of weapons to arm the units if different ways. A change like that could even bring the risk of removing GK terminators and puting in primaris GK in to the game.

**Deadnight**

If I recall, back in the day halberds were simply power weapons with an initiative boost on the turn they charged.

Ah, initiative... I remember never having it. Tau. :p

**Dudeface**

Karol wrote:
Well they have to have a base in something. A blank removal of weapon types, and only for imperial factions seems odd.

And if it were to be done to marines, it would be done to GK too, because GK get affected by marine changes no matter, if they have or don't have the specific extra rules other loyalist marines have.

That is why I am asking the questions.

GK have 4 specific to them weapons. I am not talking about lore, where clearly a two handed hammer is something different then a staff with a powerfield generator. But pure mechanics. And stuff like GK and Strikes box is full of weapons to arm the units if different ways. A change like that could even bring the risk of removing GK terminators and puting in primaris GK in to the game.

Put strats aside for now, what are the 4 mechanically different weapons and what makes you feel like they couldn't be consolidate to one profile? You could arm them however you like then. I'd make an exception for the hammer.

**Daedalus81**

catbarf wrote:

And this is my point: It doesn't actually work that way.

Marines with Transhuman: A Warrior with one pair of ScyTals average 0.55 wounds. One pair of Boneswords average 1.33. Extra AP and D2 is way better than an extra attack, it's not even close.

Death Guard with their innate -1D: ScyTals average 0.55 wounds. Boneswords average 0.89 wounds. Slimmer margin, but the extra S and AP is more useful.

How about Guard, those are pretty chaffy, right? ScyTals average 1.85 kills. Boneswords average 2.22 kills. The Boneswords are better.

Cultists? I mean it doesn't get much more chaff than T3/6+. ScyTals averages 2.22 kills. Boneswords still average 2.22. The extra S of the Boneswords offsets the extra attack with the ScyTals even against a target where the AP and D2 don't matter. This is the only comparison where ScyTals can pull ahead if you assume two pairs rather than one... Then winning by a measly 17%.

There's no specialization here- bonus attacks help against everything, but so does bonus S and bonus AP, so Boneswords are far better in any case where the D2 matters and somewhat better or on par where it doesn't. I mean, granted, that's not dissimilar to the old situation with upgrading from a chainsword to a power sword ('on par' to 'way better' depending on target), but at least you had to pay for that and it wasn't rendering other options (poor Rending Claws) redundant as well.

The most target-specific characteristic of melee weapons is their Damage stat, but everything else is just different flavors of 'kills everything better'. Shuffling those stats around doesn't meaningfully distinguish melee weapons, so there's really no mechanical need for the multitude of melee weapon profiles that currently exist.

It's a lot closer than you might think when you start to apply layers.

If you make either stand out in some regard then that option will take off with buffs. Giving boneswords 2 points per pair would probably be enough for a reasonable distinction.

Adrenals against DG gives you 1.1 for BS and 1.03 for ST. Obviously adrenals do nothing for BS in this context.
Again with GEQ you get 2.8 v 3.2.
On the other end Adrenals allows BS to hit T7 on 3s, which is a significant difference.

A slight tap makes Scytals more useful on the low end and worse on the high end -- unless you come into weird conditions and use something like 6s to wound = mortal.

**Slipspace**

Karol wrote:
Well they have to have a base in something. A blank removal of weapon types, and only for imperial factions seems odd.

And if it were to be done to marines, it would be done to GK too, because GK get affected by marine changes no matter, if they have or don't have the specific extra rules other loyalist marines have.

That is why I am asking the questions.

GK have 4 specific to them weapons. I am not talking about lore, where clearly a two handed hammer is something different then a staff with a powerfield generator. But pure mechanics. And stuff like GK and Strikes box is full of weapons to arm the units if different ways. A change like that could even bring the risk of removing GK terminators and puting in primaris GK in to the game.

For GK, there are a couple of options. You could easily justify making halberds a heavy power weapon (basically a PF) while the falchion and sword are just regular power weapons. Or make them all regular power weapons so the difference is purely aesthetic. This looks to be how CSM are going with the Accursed Weapon profile. Staffs could be either type, or be more of a defensive upgrade rather than offensive.

There's no reason why all these different types need to have different rules. There's also no reason this should only affect Imperial weapons. The designers should be looking to create archetypes for weapons so they fulfil a specific purpose, instead of worrying about how to differentiate between two swords of slightly different lengths. Incidentally, this is where USRs where really good, because you could have two weapons with identical profiles but add a single USR to one to modify it under certain conditions (make one slightly better against vehicles, for example).

**catbarf**

Daedalus81 wrote:
It's a lot closer than you might think when you start to apply layers.

If you make either stand out in some regard then that option will take off with buffs. Giving boneswords 2 points per pair would probably be enough for a reasonable distinction.

Adrenals against DG gives you 1.1 for BS and 1.03 for ST. Obviously adrenals do nothing for BS in this context.
Again with GEQ you get 2.8 v 3.2.
On the other end Adrenals allows BS to hit T7 on 3s, which is a significant difference.

A slight tap makes Scytals more useful on the low end and worse on the high end -- unless you come into weird conditions and use something like 6s to wound = mortal.

Yeah, there are some niche edge cases that elevate Scything Talons from 'strictly worse' to 'about the same'. Which, again, doesn't really support the argument that these are differentiated weapons with distinct use cases, it's just that the otherwise strictly worse weapon can pull up to on par in some situations.

Meanwhile, if we're taking Adrenal Glands, let's fight basic Marines, the most common defensive profile on the tabletop: Boneswords average 2.22 wounds, Scything Talons average 0.74. I will happily give up the opportunity to be 14% better against GEQs in return for being 200% better against MEQs, let alone vehicles, thank you very much.

Your suggested fix of assigning a points cost to Boneswords (and 2pts is still a no-brainer, given how much better the Boneswords still are against heavy infantry and vehicles) goes right back to what I said about it just putting a cost on the better weapon, rather than giving them different purposes.

If Boneswords are supposed to be the anti-heavy infantry option and Scything Talons the anti-chaff one, I'd expect the Talons to be at least 33-50% better against chaff- but start playing around with the values and you soon find that you have to get a boatload of extra attacks to actually make up for a reduction of S and AP. The game system just doesn't support differentiating weapons in this manner.

**EviscerationPlague**

Yeah unless your Guard opponent is running strictly no vehicles you'd want to be able to tackle those in melee with slightly more ease.

**Daedalus81**

catbarf wrote:
Your suggested fix of assigning a points cost to Boneswords (and 2pts is still a no-brainer, given how much better the Boneswords still are against heavy infantry and vehicles) goes right back to what I said about it just putting a cost on the better weapon, rather than giving them different purposes.

If Boneswords are supposed to be the anti-heavy infantry option and Scything Talons the anti-chaff one, I'd expect the Talons to be at least 33-50% better against chaff- but start playing around with the values and you soon find that you have to get a boatload of extra attacks to actually make up for a reduction of S and AP. The game system just doesn't support differentiating weapons in this manner.

Sure, you couldn't add more attacks to Scytals to make them more interesting, because then you might find auto-wounding on 6s to hit works better when you have two or three times the attacks.

I think it's a good approach to give more of the specialized rules like fight last to other units rather than enforcing those rules on to just the weapons of a single unit.

I feel like the goal should be taking one weapon or the other is not ultimately punishing to the player and, if they so choose, they can design an army that works around either particular weapon.

**A Town Called Malus**

catbarf wrote:

If Boneswords are supposed to be the anti-heavy infantry option and Scything Talons the anti-chaff one, I'd expect the Talons to be at least 33-50% better against chaff- but start playing around with the values and you soon find that you have to get a boatload of extra attacks to actually make up for a reduction of S and AP. The game system just doesn't support differentiating weapons in this manner.

Also, adding a load of extra attacks also increases the potential damage ceiling.

**Insectum7**

Daedalus81 wrote:

I feel like the goal should be taking one weapon or the other is not ultimately punishing to the player and, if they so choose, they can design an army that works around either particular weapon.

That first part sounds a little like "list building choices shouldn't matter". Am I missing something here?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

catbarf wrote:

If Boneswords are supposed to be the anti-heavy infantry option and Scything Talons the anti-chaff one, I'd expect the Talons to be at least 33-50% better against chaff- but start playing around with the values and you soon find that you have to get a boatload of extra attacks to actually make up for a reduction of S and AP. The game system just doesn't support differentiating weapons in this manner.

Sorry I haven't really been following the dialogue here in detail, but this statement didn't ring true to me so I took it up as a challenge.

Scything Talons proposal: S4, AP-1, D1 - doubles attacks
Boneswords proposal: S5 AP-3 D2

Scything Talons vs (calculations remove WS for brevity, also ignoring AoC for broader application and also because it's dumb

)
MEQ: 6x .5 x .5 = 1.5
GEQ: 6x .666 x .83 = 3.3

Boneswords vs
MEQ: 3x .666 x .83 x 2 = 3.3
GEQ: 3x .666 = 1.998

So you get a pretty decent difference between targets for both of those outcomes. Once you leverage Damage, AP and S you can get reasonable amounts of differentiation. Is doubling attacks a boatload? I don't think it breaks the bank necessarily. (you could replace extra attacks with bonuses to hit or rerolls *bleh*) I don't know how it all plays with other rules, but 40K has too many other rules so I'll just leave it at that

I do agree with the general premise that 40ks stat-resolution is a little squishy though. It could have been managed better for sure.

EDIT AGAIN: But yes I also agree with catbarfs follow up observation that the amount of additional GEQ casualties here with the Scything Talons is also not compelling enough over the greater MEQ/vehicle killing power. Imo there would have to be a pretty substantial points difference between the two.

**Daedalus81**

Insectum7 wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:

I feel like the goal should be taking one weapon or the other is not ultimately punishing to the player and, if they so choose, they can design an army that works around either particular weapon.

That first part sounds a little like "list building choices shouldn't matter". Am I missing something here?

No - sorry if it came across that way. They would matter in the context that Scytals would be worse into tanks and BS worse into chaff ( in a simplified statement ), but smart army design and play would help you deal with any weakness and give you a solid advantage into their specialty.

**Insectum7**

Daedalus81 wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:

I feel like the goal should be taking one weapon or the other is not ultimately punishing to the player and, if they so choose, they can design an army that works around either particular weapon.

That first part sounds a little like "list building choices shouldn't matter". Am I missing something here?

No - sorry if it came across that way. They would matter in the context that Scytals would be worse into tanks and BS worse into chaff ( in a simplified statement ), but smart army design and play would help you deal with any weakness and give you a solid advantage into their specialty.

Ok gotcha, thanks for clarifying.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Revised experiment, instead of doubling attacks giving Sctything Talons +1 to hit:

Scything Talons proposal: S4, AP-1, D1, +1 to hit
Boneswords proposal: S5 AP-3 D2

Scything Talons vs (including to-hit this time, still ignoring AoC for broader application and also because it's dumb

)
MEQ: 3 x .83 x .5 x .5 = .62
GEQ: 3 x .83 x .666 x .83 = 1.37

Boneswords vs
MEQ: 3 x .666 x .666 x .83 x 2 = 2.2
GEQ: 3 x .666 x .666 = 1.33

Well that didn't work out nearly as well because Scything Talons don't really kill any more GEQ than Boneswords. Hm. . .

**Daedalus81**

It looks like you're only doing 3 each, but it should be 5 and 7 ( if they go all-in ). Also AP2 on BS and base S5 on Warriors.

**Insectum7**

Daedalus81 wrote:
It looks like you're only doing 3 each, but it should be 5 and 7 ( if they go all-in ). Also AP2 on BS.

Huh?

I'm doing theoretical versions of the weapons here to see how much role differentiation you can get through twiddling the various stats.