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.

 vipoid wrote:

 malamis wrote:
Commander customisation; if we go down that rabbit hole why stop at powermaul/axe/lance? Hell why not have IG commanders hefting heavy bolters like Harker?

So no unit should have any customisation at all, lest it lead to imbalance in the future?

The existence of 7th edition Scatterbikes does somewhat support that argument.

Matched play, by the stated design goal in the rulebook (page 212), is to balance armies against each other; we assume through the mechanism of points and detachments. The failures so far in respect to specific unit choices notwithstanding :|

I would suggest the company commander specifically would be considerably overpowered if it had any more options than it does now, thanks to how the game has been shaken up as I've highlighted previously. Even the overcharged PPistol is a quite dangerous right now thanks to reroll 1s built into the delivery platform.

In contrast, the Tank Commander/Pask has a wide variety of options, but doesn't have the same issue as the CC being a. drastically more expensive and b. not immune to focus fire, mitigating the otherwise high efficiency of its options.

The role, function, effectiveness and *unit composition* of the Company Commander has drastically changed; paring down its options was a sensible approach - for matched play. If fancy commanders really matter then just run them in narrative, I doubt anyone would complain unless they were rocking a Lascannon or something.

 malamis wrote:
The existence of 7th edition Scatterbikes does somewhat support that argument.

Except that that wasn't due to extra options. It's not like they would have been less powerful if they could only take Scatter Lasers.

It was due to Scatter Lasers being exceptionally cheap, excellent against all but the heaviest targets, and then mountable on an exceptionally cheap and fast frame.

Also, I believe you could take more of them (1 per bike, rather than 1 per 3). So a better comparison would be allowing IG Infantry squads to take as many Heavy Weapons or Special weapons as they had models. It's not an increase in the number of options, but rather an increase in how many of each option a squad can take. Though, if you really want the comparison to work, you'd also have to double the movement of the IG squad, give them a 4++ against ranged attacks and let them move 2d6" after shooting.

 malamis wrote:

Matched play, by the stated design goal in the rulebook (page 212), is to balance armies against each other; we assume through the mechanism of points and detachments. The failures so far in respect to specific unit choices notwithstanding :|

And that is the reason why different options cost different points. If that is ignored then what is the point?

 malamis wrote:

I would suggest the company commander specifically would be considerably overpowered if it had any more options than it does now

I would suggest that this is absurd. 40k has never once been dominated by IG Company Commanders with Lasguns or Power Mauls and there is nothing whatsoever to indicate that 8th edition could change this.

 malamis wrote:
Even the overcharged PPistol is a quite dangerous right now thanks to reroll 1s built into the delivery platform.

It also has a mere 12" range, on one of the most fragile HQs in the game. And whilst rerolling 1s is indeed a thing, I'd furthermore argue that it's still quite a risk when that 1/36 chance will insta-kill your own character.

 malamis wrote:

In contrast, the Tank Commander/Pask has a wide variety of options, but doesn't have the same issue as the CC being a. drastically more expensive and b. not immune to focus fire, mitigating the otherwise high efficiency of its options.

And yet in prior editions it was Pask, not the Company Commanders, who was the dominant threat.

Even now, Company Commanders are taken only for their orders. Even plasma pistols are only added for reasons of fluff. And I think most would agree that spending points on melee weapons for a commander are not a good use of points in a competitive sense.

 malamis wrote:

The role, function, effectiveness and *unit composition* of the Company Commander has drastically changed; paring down its options was a sensible approach - for matched play.

You've still provided nothing to support this, save for your own assertions. Which don't appear to be based on anything.

Please show me all the tournaments that are being dominated by Company Commanders with Plasma Pistols.

Please show me all the tournaments where Company Commanders with Power Mauls were cleaving through opponents left, right and centre.

I'll wait.

 Blacksails wrote:
There is a happy middle ground between only 3 options and 18 options of which only a handful are useful.

I'm not talking about removing certain gear altogether, but rather removing redundant gear. Power weapons were redundant. The three grenade variants are fine (frag, krak, melta).

I agree. Everyone is taking extremes and if you aren't on their extreme, you are wrong. As I said earlier, having options but not a ton is good. A ton just yields useless options no one picks, even the fluffy players.

Hoodwink wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

Hoodwink wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

Hoodwink wrote:
I personally enjoy not having a ton of options per unit but having some.

The problem with having a ton of options is that everyone will just migrate to whatever the "best" option is and all the others become obsolete anyways. What's the point of having 18 different weapon options if people are going to use 2 or 3 regardless? Having a couple options still gives you a loadout specific for a job, but not extra stuff people will just whine and complain about not being good enough.

By this logic, what's the point of GW releasing new model lines if only one unit is any good? Final destination.

Because the entire reason to not have 1000 options per unit is so units have a specific gap in the army to fill and don't do everything. Otherwise, you get units that do everything and push out other units, making less diverse armies. By reducing the amount of variables, you make the game easier to balance and force people to diversify their list in order to cover all bases. When you can take one unit and give them anti-tank, anti-infantry, long range, number of shots, or any other type of variance, you create a situation where that unit is better than other units that don't have all those options which is what brings the unit spam. Inevitably there are units that will be considered "better" than other units but reducing the ability to make them better by gear is one step in diversifying the playfield.

So wait, you're saying reducing options makes for more diversity?

If you can make a unit that is great at everything at an affordable cost, this is because the points are off, not because diversity is the problem. Honestly, I can't believe I've ever read such a set of statements here on Dakka.

Yes, reducing the ability for a unit to do anything increases diversity by forcing people to take other units to accomplish the goals they need. So you're saying if my one unit can take a ton of equipment options to accomplish anything I want it to, I guess that makes for a diverse army list. Gotcha. Reduced options also make it so people whine and moan less about options being useless or way better than others. Cause ultimately people will whine and complain about everything they can on the internet. By giving options but not a huge plethora of them, it forces people to diversify their armies and helps with internal balance. Every single previous edition that had a plethora of other options ended up making half or so nigh unusable. Then all people did was gripe and moan about the useless gear. It's much easier to balance the game and diversify the lists when you have units that can each take an option of a handful of upgrades as opposed to 10+ each.

If it's a points balance issue and another unit can do what one unit with an upgrade can do better, then it just means the gear upgrade is useless.

You know why people are praising 8th on it's release as one of the most balanced editions yet? Because there weren't a multitude of options on every unit that needed to be balanced that would inevitably break the game or cause 90% of the options to be useless.

Is this the same "most balanced edition" where Tau Battlesuits do not exist unless they're commanders, people argue for nerfs to Imperial Soup, and a Nova Invitational was ragequit turn 0 at the top tables due to being called out on roundabout keyword cheating, and there is even less faction variety at top tables compared to 7th, and victory via tabling takes more precedence over victory by objective? Or is this balance being in the eye of the beholder, and you're selectively ignoring 8e spam of no-option units that do better than other no-option units? "Gee, do I take a Sorcerer for Smite, a Herald for Smire, or a Malefic Lord for Smite? They all Smite, any other power I can only cast once...the Malefic Lord is cheapest, hurr."

And of course, when you make units only do one thing, you create a divide between those units that do useful roles versus those that don't. Look at Eldar in 5th edition as an example, back when Hull Points didn't exist yet the vehicle damage chart was just tough enough to make Razorspam a thing. Sure, you could get pedantic about Banshees versus Scorpions, two units that only existed to kill infantry in melee. Or you take the only reliable anti-tank unit from that slot (and arguably the entire Eldar Codex) or else you were screwed. Eldar were a no-option army turned monobuild: http://wasted-knights.blogspot.com/2010/06/joys-of-melta.html?m=1

Give multiple units the *option* to have "similarish" roles without making them too explicitly superior over the other. One could argue for Hellhounds versus Eradicators in 5th, even though both functionally shared the same role of "long range S6 AP4 coverbuster", the question being if getting close and move-interdiction (or fast tankshocks) mattered more than heavy armor and the ability to provide a wall for other units (ex. a Command Chimera with Creed). There should be more to winning the game than simple "make dem points back", or straight firepower.

Of course, there should be meaningful differences between units anyway. Bikes versus Scout Bikers is a screwed up case: Bikers get better armor and weapon options. Scouts get...a Stratagem that requires them to survive a round in melee and withdraw in order to inflict D3 mortal wounds on a 2+. You'd think they could, I dunno, actually lay cluster mines ("buy supporting Citadel minefields!") or use Astartes Launchers for firing "utility" explosions (flares, anti-plant grenades, stun rounds, etc) or anything that allows for "subversive" rather than "smashy."

Hoodwink wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
There is a happy middle ground between only 3 options and 18 options of which only a handful are useful.

I'm not talking about removing certain gear altogether, but rather removing redundant gear. Power weapons were redundant. The three grenade variants are fine (frag, krak, melta).

I agree. Everyone is taking extremes and if you aren't on their extreme, you are wrong. As I said earlier, having options but not a ton is good. A ton just yields useless options no one picks, even the fluffy players.

Who are you to tell me what options I would and would not pick?

I'm a fluffy player, and if I wanted an option that cost 5 points and made my character weapon skill and ballistic skill 6+ because he is old and elderly, I'd take it. Sadly, that commander in my fluff is long dead (thanks to being old and elderly) but at the time I would have absolutely taken it. His daughter runs my superheavy tank regiment now.

Because having been involved since 2e, I've listened to players constantly whine about how their options they want are useless, even self-proclaimed fluffy players. Finally GW curbs the number of options and what do people do? They continue to whine. Because there is no pleasing the base so GW might as well take the approach that's easiest to balance.

Hoodwink wrote:
Because having been involved since 2e, I've listened to players constantly whine about how their options they want are useless, even self-proclaimed fluffy players. Finally GW curbs the number of options and what do people do? They continue to whine. Because there is no pleasing the base so GW might as well take the approach that's easiest to balance.

Whining that an option is useless means that it should be buffed, not removed.

I also have played since early 3rd, and have only ever whined when options were removed. Because that is stupid. Let people whine about useless options if they must - but removing options outright invalidates whole armies. (Oh, you played carapace guard with Warrior Weapons and converted your whole army to have laspistols, knives, and carapace armour? Sorry mate, get fethed.)

Yeah, this "because I've watched all you other players whinewhinewhine" is really reeking of a Stop Having Fun Guy attitude.

I enjoy playing to win, but it doesn't mean I am going to have a stick up my posterior region if my foe wants to do some specific loadout option that ultimately matters little in the grand scheme of things. So what if my opponent has a Genestealer Cult Magus with an oversized sacrificial dagger instead of a Force Sword, or has lovingly converted a Chimera to be a Medicae vehicle? Sure, why not? Does it make sense, and is it fairly costed? Is it something like 15 Character Officers with Plasma? Ehh, that's whack, but I would personally look at the Character Targeting rules first before stripping said options (as these targeting rules also get exploited to spam Tau Commanders, Malefic Lords, and Assassins). Maybe the character can only pass off hits to friendly units within 3", rather than it being the character being allowed to stand in the open?

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Yeah, this "because I've watched all you other players whinewhinewhine" is really reeking of a Stop Having Fun Guy attitude.

I enjoy playing to win, but it doesn't mean I am going to have a stick up my posterior region if my foe wants to do some specific loadout option that ultimately matters little in the grand scheme of things. So what if my opponent has a Genestealer Cult Magus with an oversized sacrificial dagger instead of a Force Sword, or has lovingly converted a Chimera to be a Medicae vehicle? Sure, why not? Does it make sense, and is it fairly costed? Is it something like 15 Character Officers with Plasma? Ehh, that's whack, but I would personally look at the Character Targeting rules first before stripping said options (as these targeting rules also get exploited to spam Tau Commanders, Malefic Lords, and Assassins). Maybe the character can only pass off hits to friendly units within 3", rather than it being the character being allowed to stand in the open?

Yeah, this.

Another example I saw is someone made a guard regiment from a water world with floating island-cities that specialized in amphibious assaults and was mounted in Chimeras. People thought it was weird and were like "Why are you in Chimeras" and he could point them to the Amphibious rule which was right on its data-sheet. We even had a local campaign where his world was assaulted, and only him and armies with enough flyers to transport every other model in the army could invade other cities without taking a city's docks first ('cause they could fly, or in his case, drive through the water).

Now? Bupkis. Because... reasons, I suppose. Not sure how many points the Chimera was paying for Amphibious, but even if it was 5 or 10, I'd still pay it because I thought it was awesome.

 vipoid wrote:


Except that that wasn't due to extra options. It's not like they would have been less powerful if they could only take Scatter Lasers.

It was due to Scatter Lasers being exceptionally cheap, excellent against all but the heaviest targets, and then mountable on an exceptionally cheap and fast frame.

And also that they were a troops choice in some configurations; allowing a taxation slot to be taken by a high efficiency choice that was then improved by customisation. Drop 'fast' and the argument is identical for plasma gun armed Company commanders :|

 vipoid wrote:


And that is the reason why different options cost different points. If that is ignored then what is the point?

It's also why certain options are limited to slot choices; for (exaggerated) example, being able to take a Manticore as a HQ option :
1. removes the limiting effect of the detachment system
2. effectively makes the manticore cheaper by the cost of the company commander,
3. grants a command point for taking 4 manticores

Rewrite that to "grants a command point for taking 4 plasma guns; who will never be shot" if the CC and PC were allowed to take them and the game suddenly has a problem.

 vipoid wrote:

I would suggest that this is absurd. 40k has never once been dominated by IG Company Commanders with Lasguns or Power Mauls

'Dominated' no; but power *axe* commanders were a very efficient choice for tournament based FW artillery crew lists when the extra orders mattered and a dead terminator (who cost more than the CS and Power Axe) would be welcome.

 vipoid wrote:

there is nothing whatsoever to indicate that 8th edition could change this.

Then you haven't been playing against folks who abuse the Character keyword enough. They were weak in previous editions because they would *always* be targettable compared to other characters who could just drop their previous escort and plug into another one if necessary. Now everyone can just hide behind anything, an immune to fire shooting attack of any significance , in an army of already significant shooting, would be a problem.

 malamis wrote:

It also has a mere 12" range, on one of the most fragile HQs in the game. And whilst rerolling 1s is indeed a thing, I'd furthermore argue that it's still quite a risk when that 1/36 chance will insta-kill your own character.

And yet he's likely to survive *more* than a more expensive hellblaster thanks to having double the wounds. He, or more accurately *they* also have access to as much 3 point ablative shielding you care to employ.

 vipoid wrote:

And yet in prior editions it was Pask, not the Company Commanders, who was the dominant threat.

How is that relevant?

 vipoid wrote:

Even now, Company Commanders are taken only for their orders. Even plasma pistols are only added for reasons of fluff. And I think most would agree that spending points on melee weapons for a commander are not a good use of points in a competitive sense.

Investing in high damage low shot for melee is in general, a weaker option than shooting. For high accuracy shooting if, as i've been saying, the CC had access to better shooting options it would be a very competitive option.

 vipoid wrote:

You've still provided nothing to support this, save for your own assertions. Which don't appear to be based on anything.

I had assumed, since you were so vehement with your assertions, you knew guard and 8th well enough that I didn't need to

1. Since at least 3rd, you could never take a company commander without a bodyguard unit
2. At no point was the unit in any way immune to being targeted directly
3. again since at least 3rd The company commander has never had the 'independent character' attribute, which meant that even Look Out Sir! rolls were less effective for them

Therefore, investing in the Commander was generally only for style points, as they stayed inside a chimera in the backfield and shouted at people, or tooled forward in it with their meltagun/plasma CS who did the actual work.

In 8th, then
1. you can take up to 15 in your army. Potentially in just one transport if you so desire. A more sensible approach would be 10 in 2 supcom detachments and a brigade off to the side.
2. Only the use of sniper weapons, and total destruction of ablative shielding, allows for characters to be targetted
3. Thanks to how shooting & characters works, X company commanders ( or platoon commanders for that matter) need *X units of shooting minimum* to move them off an objective as a unit cannot split fire, or target the next one before the nearest CC has been killed.

Therefore, even with the Plasma pistol the CC is a non-trivial threat in a lot of situations, as anything invested in him is likely to pay off. If he could be equipped with better shooting, such as the isotropic plasma gun, he would in fact be arguably broken.

Perhaps the problem is the character keyword and not the weapon options?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Perhaps the problem is the character keyword and not the weapon options?

Exactly. Tooled Commanders would rival smite bombs for effectiveness, and would have fewer counters.

However, making him a non-character returns to the problem of "check me i'm a bullet magnet" as does forcing the CS on him again.

Of the paths that could be chosen, this , I think, was the best for the game, if not the feel.

 malamis wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Perhaps the problem is the character keyword and not the weapon options?

Exactly. Tooled Commanders would rival smite bombs for effectiveness, and would have fewer counters.

However, making him a non-character returns to the problem of "check me i'm a bullet magnet" as does forcing the CS on him again.

Of the paths that could be chosen, this , I think, was the best for the game, if not the feel.

How about you only allow him to pass wounds on to units within 3"? Or even units with the Bodyguard keyword (and then make that a thing).

There's a bunch of options between "he can now be shot by literally everyone" and "guess he's immune to shooting now".

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


How about you only allow him to pass wounds on to units within 3"? Or even units with the Bodyguard keyword (and then make that a thing).

There's a bunch of options between "he can now be shot by literally everyone" and "guess he's immune to shooting now".

Viable, but more trouble than its worth surely? It'd have to be applied to the whole codex, and then put IG at a disadvantage just to address a problem that only exists because one unit was given more options than it should have for the role it plays.

Personally I just mounted all my formerly fancy commanders in tanks, because the tanks they are in will VASTLY outperform anything they could have been equipped with as foot soldiers, and they still kept their style

That the plasma pistol commander in an executioner seems to get more shots with the main gun at short range is a nice bit of applied mojo.

 malamis wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


How about you only allow him to pass wounds on to units within 3"? Or even units with the Bodyguard keyword (and then make that a thing).

There's a bunch of options between "he can now be shot by literally everyone" and "guess he's immune to shooting now".

Viable, but more trouble than its worth surely? It'd have to be applied to the whole codex, and then put IG at a disadvantage just to address a problem that only exists because one unit was given more options than it should have for the role it plays.

Personally I just mounted all my formerly fancy commanders in tanks, because the tanks they are in will VASTLY outperform anything they could have been equipped with as foot soldiers, and they still kept their style

That the plasma pistol commander in an executioner seems to get more shots with the main gun at short range is a nice bit of applied mojo.

You misunderstand me - I'm not talking about guard codex rules. I think the Character targeting rules are bupkis in general and lead to things like the Assassin army that's been bandied about a bit lately, or hilarious things like Librarian spam.

Fixating on "having options is bad because a core rule is broken" is a perfect example of treating the symptom rather than curing the disease. The problem is a core rule issue, not the fact that Guard Commanders might have had access to Carapace Armour, Bionics, and Meltabombs.

Also, my friend's assault army would be outright insulted that you suggested he put his glorious, power-sword wielding Heroic Senior Officer, famous for leading his men into the teeth of enemy fire walking right alongside them, go in to a shooting platform totally unsuited to leading his men (no orders for infantry), assaulting (LRBTs are not very good in combat), and fluff writing ("My infantry regiment fields a tank commander because when I say infantry regiment I really mean tank regiment... kinda.")

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


You misunderstand me - I'm not talking about guard codex rules. I think the Character targeting rules are bupkis in general and lead to things like the Assassin army that's been bandied about a bit lately, or hilarious things like Librarian spam.

Pardon

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Fixating on "having options is bad because a core rule is broken" is a perfect example of treating the symptom rather than curing the disease. The problem is a core rule issue, not the fact that Guard Commanders might have had access to Carapace Armour, Bionics, and Meltabombs.

I don't think there's a way to solve it at all besides toning down the abilities available to 'can't shot me nya nya' models. If support characters are bullet magnets, no-one takes them or, as IG commanders were once, they were superficial models taken as tax and little else. If they're not, they're abused. I really don't see how any middle ground could be reached in a d6 system. A d20 system maybe?

As for meltabombs, bionics and Carapace armour; i'd point out that none of these options are sold as GW kits (to my knowledge) and anything that wasn't a power sword was kit bashed with the exception of the power axe commissar; kitbashing being something GW only vaguely acknowledges now; UBER EXPENSIVE GUARDSMEN conversions notwithstanding.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Also, my friend's assault army would be outright insulted that you suggested he put his glorious, power-sword wielding Heroic Senior Officer, famous for leading his men into the teeth of enemy fire walking right alongside them, go in to a shooting platform totally unsuited to leading his men (no orders for infantry), assaulting (LRBTs are not very good in combat), and fluff writing ("My infantry regiment fields a tank commander because when I say infantry regiment I really mean tank regiment... kinda.")

Put him on a Stormlord, hanging off the prow like a figurehead so as to Stabbity Death with S9

 malamis wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Perhaps the problem is the character keyword and not the weapon options?

Exactly. Tooled Commanders would rival smite bombs for effectiveness, and would have fewer counters.

However, making him a non-character returns to the problem of "check me i'm a bullet magnet" as does forcing the CS on him again.

Of the paths that could be chosen, this , I think, was the best for the game, if not the feel.

Wait...are we calling 35 points for a BS3+ (or 2+, I forget) single plasma shot abusively overpowered?

Is that what we're doing in this thread?

the_scotsman wrote:

 malamis wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Perhaps the problem is the character keyword and not the weapon options?

Exactly. Tooled Commanders would rival smite bombs for effectiveness, and would have fewer counters.

However, making him a non-character returns to the problem of "check me i'm a bullet magnet" as does forcing the CS on him again.

Of the paths that could be chosen, this , I think, was the best for the game, if not the feel.

Wait...are we calling 35 points for a BS3+ (or 2+, I forget) single plasma shot abusively overpowered?

Is that what we're doing in this thread?

43 points for a theoretical Commander/Plasma gun with 'can't shoooot meeeee' s8 ap3 d2 at 12/24 or 15/30" for Vostroyans rerolling 1s at bs3.

Primaris psykers cost 3 points less but:
don't grant orders, nor can benefit from orders
dont benefit from regimental traits
Are subject to having their effectiveness cancelled out by other psykers on the board
When comparing smite, have a shorter maximum range

Plasma pistols are just 'Decent'

Many people lament that if you have many options game balance have to suffer, as if game balance was some almighty static deity. Its not, and with human intelligence we can make amazing things. That is if we don't falter. Its easy to fall back on the old more options equals worse balance statement, but remember, that statement is only true if we choose to not tackle the problem at hand.

In a perfect 40k there could be dozens of options for every character and all could be made useful and balanced. But its nothing that will just be spawned by the universe, the game makers have to create it.

GW is like an old royal family, who want to keep the family intact with no outsider genes, no matter how inbred it gets.

FudgeDumper wrote:
Many people lament that if you have many options game balance have to suffer, as if game balance was some almighty static deity. Its not, and with human intelligence we can make amazing things. That is if we don't falter. Its easy to fall back on the old more options equals worse balance statement, but remember, that statement is only true if we choose to not tackle the problem at hand.

In a perfect 40k there could be dozens of options for every character and all could be made useful and balanced. But its nothing that will just be spawned by the universe, the game makers have to create it.

GW is like an old royal family, who want to keep the family intact with no outsider genes, no matter how inbred it gets.

More options doesn't = less balance.

More options = more difficult balance

Every option and combination of options requires balancing. Thus the more options you have the more likely it is things will be unbalanced because something slips through the cracks.

For instance Rowboat is balanced or even potentially over costed if you limited his aura to say primaris marines. However when you have it extend to all marine options you need to playtest every single one of those options to look for places where it might be to powerful, or not powerful enough. The same holds true at a squad level. A squad of Guard infantry might be terrible with no options, and too good spamming a specific option, or have an obvious loadout for effectiveness (lack of meaningful options).

The easiest game to balance would be one where units have very little buff or debuff effects, and have no options at all. Now that is not necessarily going to be the most interesting game, so you look for some middle ground where options are somewhat limited, but what options exist are meaningful.

The thing to remember is that time is a limited resource and as such it simply is not realistic that every option in a game with a ton of options will be tested.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 malamis wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 malamis wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Perhaps the problem is the character keyword and not the weapon options?

Exactly. Tooled Commanders would rival smite bombs for effectiveness, and would have fewer counters.

However, making him a non-character returns to the problem of "check me i'm a bullet magnet" as does forcing the CS on him again.

Of the paths that could be chosen, this , I think, was the best for the game, if not the feel.

Wait...are we calling 35 points for a BS3+ (or 2+, I forget) single plasma shot abusively overpowered?

Is that what we're doing in this thread?

43 points for a theoretical Commander/Plasma gun with 'can't shoooot meeeee' s8 ap3 d2 at 12/24 or 15/30" for Vostroyans rerolling 1s at bs3.

Primaris psykers cost 3 points less but:
don't grant orders, nor can benefit from orders
dont benefit from regimental traits
Are subject to having their effectiveness cancelled out by other psykers on the board
When comparing smite, have a shorter maximum range

Plasma pistols are just 'Decent'

The big difference is that at best that commander never does 6 unsaved wounds in a single turn. At optimal range the commander will put out 6 wounds (assuming no saves) in a 6 turn game. A primaris psyker (assuming not being shut down, spam prevents most from being shut down) will deal 11.5.

Azuza001 wrote:
I don't know, with the current release of tyrnaid coming out there looks to be some amazing different and diverse options that hive fleets and their hive tyrant hq's will be able to get. Maybe it's just a case of individuals are out, army modification is in with a sprinkle of custom hq?

That's going to be a mess again, with people complaining about models being built 'wrong' (for what their rules are), and opponents only being able to identify a handful of weapons and complete confusion about all the other crap. Especially with the addition of super-special-<hive fleet>-only versions of weapons.

It's skirmish level detail in a spam level mass battle game, and very much at odds with the new edition.

 Blacksails wrote:

There is a difference between options and meaningful options.

The differentiation mechanically between a power sword, maul, or axe didn't do much to dramatically alter the game. It was unnecessary, made balance harder, offered very little meaningful impact on the table from your choice, and posed WYSIWYG issues. As a player, a power weapon being simply a power weapon was better because it allowed freedom to model what I wanted and just call it a power weapon. It simplified the game, and offered a meaningful choice between no power weapon and a fist.

Sure, I agree. But now there are different sorts of power weapons, and giving a model access to only one type limits the modelling options, and possibly renders some old models unusable. This is annoying.

I just want to be able to personalise my guys a bit, I don't want all my sergeant to be identical, or all my characters have same gear as the opponent's similar characters. I really don't think it would break the game if for example Primaris sergeants could have power axes or IG Company Commanders could have carapace armours.

 Crimson wrote:

Sure, I agree. But now there are different sorts of power weapons, and giving a model access to only one type limits the modelling options, and possibly renders some old models unusable. This is annoying.

Right, which is why going back to generic 'power weapon' would be perfect. No matter what you modeled, you just call it a power weapon and boom, good to go. Especially given that the minute differences is well, minute. Its unnecessary detail and minutiae when you run the numbers on how effective they all are.

I just want to be able to personalise my guys a bit, I don't want all my sergeant to be identical, or all my characters have same gear as the opponent's similar characters. I really don't think it would break the game if for example Primaris sergeants could have power axes or IG Company Commanders could have carapace armours.

I think power weapons should be merged again, as the split doesn't add anything meaningful to the game. Giving armour options counts as good options as far as I'm concerned. I miss carapace for officers and veterans.

Another 2c:

Not everything fluffy needs to have rules associated with it. With the bionics example, there's a bionic arm piece in the Command Squad box, your guy has his fluff story about how his arm was shot off by a battle cannon for having that arm. It not giving a 6+ doesn't prevent you from having it, in fact, otherwise useless aesthetic upgrades not having rules is good, I think, since it means you can take them on your guys without sacrificing efficiency.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Another 2c:

Not everything fluffy needs to have rules associated with it. With the bionics example, there's a bionic arm piece in the Command Squad box, your guy has his fluff story about how his arm was shot off by a battle cannon for having that arm. It not giving a 6+ doesn't prevent you from having it, in fact, otherwise useless aesthetic upgrades not having rules is good, I think, since it means you can take them on your guys without sacrificing efficiency.

My thoughts exactly. Not every single part of character's backstory needs to be represented as a rule and visual piece of wargear.

I agree in principle, but it's not like Bionics was overpowered enough to drop.

In fact, there's even rules for it as a 6+ invuln now, which is both more streamlined and equally "useless".

IDK, just feels like another option sliced for no reason; heck, as you point out, it even has a model.

And as a countercounter-example, Bionics is a very broad term; which means anything from a leg replacement to an iron lung, all abstracted as a 6+ save, despite conversion options either being whacky or nonexistent ("It's subdermal.").

Like, if GW made a plastic Cybork kit that let you do Orks on Treads, Orks with spider legs or with antigrav torsos ("Floatorks"), I'm sure Ork players could go wild with that. Hell, a customizable "Plastic Squigs" unit which was easy to convert with Gobbo riders, splody dynamite, big toofy gobs, etc would be an option for GW to print money for two separare lines.

Blacksails wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Another 2c:

Not everything fluffy needs to have rules associated with it. With the bionics example, there's a bionic arm piece in the Command Squad box, your guy has his fluff story about how his arm was shot off by a battle cannon for having that arm. It not giving a 6+ doesn't prevent you from having it, in fact, otherwise useless aesthetic upgrades not having rules is good, I think, since it means you can take them on your guys without sacrificing efficiency.

My thoughts exactly. Not every single part of character's backstory needs to be represented as a rule and visual piece of wargear.

Flavor items should be rules-less and cost-less, but there are some notably lacking mechanical options that actually change the way the unit operates and give it tactically valuable new abilities on the tabletop. I can offer Canoness Jump Packs and IG Carapace Armor, and I'm sure you can think of examples for other armies.

There's also some units that have arbitrarily restricted mechanical options, like the Seraphim Superior, whom I desperately want to give a Power Axe too but can only give a Power Sword.

Unit1126PLL wrote:I agree in principle, but it's not like Bionics was overpowered enough to drop.

In fact, there's even rules for it as a 6+ invuln now, which is both more streamlined and equally "useless".

IDK, just feels like another option sliced for no reason; heck, as you point out, it even has a model.

I don't feel it's loss. It's a flavor option, and when it comes to it, I think flavor options should be strictly non-mechanical. As I said, cutting it off as a mechanical upgrade frees it up to be a part of your character's backstory whether or not you want to pay points for it by just modelling it there, and you shouldn't really be paying points for your backstory anyway. When your backstory is mechanical, it becomes limited by what you can pay for.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:


Flavor items should be rules-less and cost-less, but there are some notably lacking mechanical options that actually change the way the unit operates and give it tactically valuable new abilities on the tabletop. I can offer Canoness Jump Packs and IG Carapace Armor, and I'm sure you can think of examples for other armies.

There's also some units that have arbitrarily restricted mechanical options, like the Seraphim Superior, whom I desperately want to give a Power Axe too but can only give a Power Sword.

I agree completely. Well except for the power weapon part, which I'd love to go back to the old power weapon options then split into a bunch of minorly different, unimportant options.

I want to take veterans, but without carapace I can't really take them as the Grenadiers I want to run them as.

Yeah, power Weapons should go back to just being Power Weapons. Like, 5 of my 7 tactical dark angel sargeants have power maces, not power swords. And in my group nobody has a problem with that, but I'm pretty sure that in some tournament I'll have people pointing out the lack of WYSIWYG