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.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

The brainstorming would be worthwhile. Apocalypse is an enormously better ruleset than 40k.

How so? It just means every unit is it's own commander. Only issue is that every CHARACTER can become a WARLORD, but that can be fixed by making only HQs WARLORDS.

I might be convoluting many effects for Commanders that are actually for Characters. I can just re-read the cards and such later to see. If that's the case, I rescind my comments.

No worries, it's a thing a lot of people get mixed up.

There are three "types" of Commander.

Every detachment has a Commander. This can be any unit you wish. Whenever a unit that is a Commander dies, another unit in that detachment becomes that detachments Commander. You select which unit is the Commander of a detachment after both players have deployed, and furthermore this must be the unit with the highest Leadership Characteristic in the detachment (you pick which unit in the event of a tie).

After declaring Commanders, if the Commander of a detachment is a CHARACTER, it is now also a WARLORD. WARLORD units grant various benefits, the main one being that they generate a Command Asset for your army in each Orders phase. If a WARLORD is slain, unless otherwise specified, the unit you choose to replace them as a Commander does not become a WARLORD, regardless of whether they are a CHARACTER or not.

Finally, after all Commanders have been nominated, each player must select one Commander to be the army's Warmaster. If you have any WARLORD units in your army, your Warmaster must be one of them (in this case the Leadership Characteristic is not important). Warmasters are the same as WARLORD units in almost every regard, except a few rules apply to Warmasters specifically rather than WARLORD units.

Where a Command Asset affects a whole detachment or units within a detachment, it normally states "A detachment lead by a X Commander", which if we treated each unit as a detachment would allow for Command Assets to be used on single units.

Activating unit by unit probably works fine, with the caveat of some weird edge scenarios popping up here and there, but I kinda like the fact that units can be outright routed by fire if they stray too far away from their commanding sections. It could be worthwhile to preserve some of that in the u-by-u system.

 Sherrypie wrote:
Activating unit by unit probably works fine, with the caveat of some weird edge scenarios popping up here and there, but I kinda like the fact that units can be outright routed by fire if they stray too far away from their commanding sections. It could be worthwhile to preserve some of that in the u-by-u system.

The biggest issue becomes the cards. Many cards effect detachments or units. When the detachment is no longer being issued the order things get wonky when the card effects the whole detachment.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:
Activating unit by unit probably works fine, with the caveat of some weird edge scenarios popping up here and there, but I kinda like the fact that units can be outright routed by fire if they stray too far away from their commanding sections. It could be worthwhile to preserve some of that in the u-by-u system.

The biggest issue becomes the cards. Many cards effect detachments or units. When the detachment is no longer being issued the order things get wonky when the card effects the whole detachment.

I disagree. If you're treating each unit as it's own detachment, you'll issue orders to each unit. Cards that affect a whole detachment will still do so, it's just that the unit is the only unit in the detachment.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I really would like to see how unit by unit activation works.

Not well, I'd expect. Apocalypse seems to be designed and balanced around treating multiple units as models in a "unit". One infantry squad has a low probability of success but it's also cheap, so take 3-5 of them, treat them as a single unit, and focus them against a single target to make sure it dies. This works great with activating an entire detachment at a time and it keeps the back-and-forth of activations from getting out of control. With unit-by-unit activation you'd still probably see similar groupings of units, except now you have to spend more time resolving the much longer sequence of activations.

The only reason I mention unit-by-unit activation is that in very low point games you start to lack sufficient units for detachment-by-detachment activation to give a meaningful number of exchanges and it gets too close to IGOUGO. But at that point armies are small, unit counts are low, and even activating single units doesn't push the execution time too high.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Where a Command Asset affects a whole detachment or units within a detachment, it normally states "A detachment lead by a X Commander", which if we treated each unit as a detachment would allow for Command Assets to be used on single units.

This is what I was thinking of. And yes, it just goes away when you consider each unit to be its own commander. Problem solved.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
In terms of balance. Apoc is the least balanced version of 40k I have ever played. The cards are overly powerful. Unit costs are atrocious and I mean atrocious. The general format is nice but they also blew it with hitting on d6's - it should be d12's. Deep strike should count as moving OFC. I could go on and on but it's bad.

I've been doing some mathhammer breakdowns of the different units from all my various factions, and I've been finding the exact opposite. The durability vs damage for the cost of most units is on a pretty even sliding scale. A few exceptions, but far fewer than 40k.

Have you seen greyknights? Have you compared a phantom titan to a reverent titan? How about adept astartes - ranging from insanely OP to terribad. A standard LR is 13 PL compared to an executioner is 23 for like marginally better offense and weaker defense? You are straight up wrong. You got duped for 100 bucks to by cardboard cutouts and cards. The cards totally ruin it too. Bad balance I am used to. Random cards that swing the game drastically? Get the heck outta here.

 Xenomancers wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
In terms of balance. Apoc is the least balanced version of 40k I have ever played. The cards are overly powerful. Unit costs are atrocious and I mean atrocious. The general format is nice but they also blew it with hitting on d6's - it should be d12's. Deep strike should count as moving OFC. I could go on and on but it's bad.

I've been doing some mathhammer breakdowns of the different units from all my various factions, and I've been finding the exact opposite. The durability vs damage for the cost of most units is on a pretty even sliding scale. A few exceptions, but far fewer than 40k.

Have you seen greyknights? Have you compared a phantom titan to a reverent titan? How about adept astartes - ranging from insanely OP to terribad. A standard LR is 13 PL compared to an executioner is 23 for like marginally better offense and weaker defense? You are straight up wrong. You got duped for 100 bucks to by cardboard cutouts and cards. The cards totally ruin it too. Bad balance I am used to. Random cards that swing the game drastically? Get the heck outta here.

Have you actually tried the game? Because these "Random cards that swing the game drastically" are not as big a problem as you claim they are.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
In terms of balance. Apoc is the least balanced version of 40k I have ever played. The cards are overly powerful. Unit costs are atrocious and I mean atrocious. The general format is nice but they also blew it with hitting on d6's - it should be d12's. Deep strike should count as moving OFC. I could go on and on but it's bad.

I've been doing some mathhammer breakdowns of the different units from all my various factions, and I've been finding the exact opposite. The durability vs damage for the cost of most units is on a pretty even sliding scale. A few exceptions, but far fewer than 40k.

Have you seen greyknights? Have you compared a phantom titan to a reverent titan? How about adept astartes - ranging from insanely OP to terribad. A standard LR is 13 PL compared to an executioner is 23 for like marginally better offense and weaker defense? You are straight up wrong. You got duped for 100 bucks to by cardboard cutouts and cards. The cards totally ruin it too. Bad balance I am used to. Random cards that swing the game drastically? Get the heck outta here.

Have you actually tried the game? Because these "Random cards that swing the game drastically" are not as big a problem as you claim they are.

They are literally half of your armies power. The best cards are like. This unit dies easily. This unit becomes nearly indestructible. This detachment shoots twice. Some cards are - reroll a dice. I've played it several times. I think most the admiration comes from the new gameplay aspects - those are good but could have been a lot better. The balance is worse than usual and cards are way worse than stratagems. Stratagems typically affect only 1 unit. Lots of cards affect entire detachments.

BaconCatBug wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:
Activating unit by unit probably works fine, with the caveat of some weird edge scenarios popping up here and there, but I kinda like the fact that units can be outright routed by fire if they stray too far away from their commanding sections. It could be worthwhile to preserve some of that in the u-by-u system.

The biggest issue becomes the cards. Many cards effect detachments or units. When the detachment is no longer being issued the order things get wonky when the card effects the whole detachment.

I disagree. If you're treating each unit as it's own detachment, you'll issue orders to each unit. Cards that affect a whole detachment will still do so, it's just that the unit is the only unit in the detachment.

I am just saying the impact of a card that effects a unit and a card that effects a detachment have greater or lesser effect in general based on the potential scale of the number of units it can impact. What is currently a potential balance effect disappears when unit and detachment are indistinguishable. Maybe I am wrong and it's just not an issue. But it is a factor to consider and test for.

Xenomancers wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
In terms of balance. Apoc is the least balanced version of 40k I have ever played. The cards are overly powerful. Unit costs are atrocious and I mean atrocious. The general format is nice but they also blew it with hitting on d6's - it should be d12's. Deep strike should count as moving OFC. I could go on and on but it's bad.

I've been doing some mathhammer breakdowns of the different units from all my various factions, and I've been finding the exact opposite. The durability vs damage for the cost of most units is on a pretty even sliding scale. A few exceptions, but far fewer than 40k.

Have you seen greyknights? Have you compared a phantom titan to a reverent titan? How about adept astartes - ranging from insanely OP to terribad. A standard LR is 13 PL compared to an executioner is 23 for like marginally better offense and weaker defense? You are straight up wrong. You got duped for 100 bucks to by cardboard cutouts and cards. The cards totally ruin it too. Bad balance I am used to. Random cards that swing the game drastically? Get the heck outta here.

Have you actually tried the game? Because these "Random cards that swing the game drastically" are not as big a problem as you claim they are.

They are literally half of your armies power. The best cards are like. This unit dies easily. This unit becomes nearly indestructible. This detachment shoots twice. Some cards are - reroll a dice. I've played it several times. I think most the admiration comes from the new gameplay aspects - those are good but could have been a lot better. The balance is worse than usual and cards are way worse than stratagems. Stratagems typically affect only 1 unit. Lots of cards affect entire detachments.

They are very literally not half your armies power. No card has ever done even half the work my hormagaunt/swarmlord/tyrant guard/venomthrope detachment has. The way you list build to make a detachment into a cohesive fighting force means significantly more than how you build your deck. The stratagems of regular 40k are a joke. The balance is better than 8th by a mile.

 Xenomancers wrote:
They are literally half of your armies power. The best cards are like. This unit dies easily. This unit becomes nearly indestructible. This detachment shoots twice. Some cards are - reroll a dice. I've played it several times. I think most the admiration comes from the new gameplay aspects - those are good but could have been a lot better. The balance is worse than usual and cards are way worse than stratagems. Stratagems typically affect only 1 unit. Lots of cards affect entire detachments.

So I've played several games also, both fun silly lists and "Obliterator Bombs with DKOK Drawing your entire deck every turn" lists. Yes, the command assets do nice things, but then so do stratagems in 40k powered by Loyal 32. The cards that affect entire detachments are good, yes. But your opponent also has access to Command Assets. The more powerful ones are usually limited to 3 units or to a specific sub-faction.

I ran a mass of 3x20 Berserkers one game. One got wiped out and one was half dead before they got into combat. I activated the World Eater card to make the two remaining units slap 20 attacks each down and... they pinged off some Custard Creams and did very little and got wiped out in return. Hardly the most game breaking thing ever.

 Xenomancers wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
In terms of balance. Apoc is the least balanced version of 40k I have ever played. The cards are overly powerful. Unit costs are atrocious and I mean atrocious. The general format is nice but they also blew it with hitting on d6's - it should be d12's. Deep strike should count as moving OFC. I could go on and on but it's bad.

I've been doing some mathhammer breakdowns of the different units from all my various factions, and I've been finding the exact opposite. The durability vs damage for the cost of most units is on a pretty even sliding scale. A few exceptions, but far fewer than 40k.

Have you seen greyknights? Have you compared a phantom titan to a reverent titan? How about adept astartes - ranging from insanely OP to terribad. A standard LR is 13 PL compared to an executioner is 23 for like marginally better offense and weaker defense? You are straight up wrong. You got duped for 100 bucks to by cardboard cutouts and cards. The cards totally ruin it too. Bad balance I am used to. Random cards that swing the game drastically? Get the heck outta here.

Have I seen Grey Knights - Yes. They seem much better in apoc than they do in standard 40k? I haven't played with or against them, but throwing some of their stuff into my mathhammer tables nothing seems particularly nutty bad about them. Glancing over their stuff, it seems like their Terminators have slightly better melee than standard astartes termies, slightly worse shooting (only in the optional upgrades though, which are not as good as the Assault Cannon or cyclone missile launcher). Purifiers are slightly different Sternguard with less range and better weapon upgrades. Interceptors are more glass cannony Inceptors. They also all get Psyker basically for free, which is cool. Nemesis Dreadknight is a bit of a weird unit, but comparing it with a teleporter to Lightning Claw assault Terminators it looks pretty great. More damage, slightly more durability, just can't crank its squad size up to double and get four wounds. The NDKs and the StormTalon Gunship seem like they could be a little overpowered just in terms of damage you get vs durability. I would rather see the NDK at a 5+ save rather than a 4+ save, or make the teleporter more expensive. It seems like with both GK and GSC deep strike gets given out a little more freely because if everything gets it, only half can use it.

Have I compared a Phantom to a revenant titan? Sure, they're right at the bottom here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hw_7FYeJ7_rMgxDoMVAs7vk9mDSud0mNUDGxBtdAeRE/edit?usp=sharing

Revenant is a bit of a glass cannon for the points comparatively, probably because it's got the 32" move with Fly off an Advance, and the Revenant is comparatively unlikely to get into combat with whatever he wants turn 1 unless he goes full megasword and just Assaults turn 1. Dire Pulsars on the Phantom seem to be the only pointless weapon option, they just do half the damage for twice the range, and I shudder to imagine the table you have to be on to make that a viable choice. Everything else, you've got a sliding scale between the most glass cannon option of the sonic lance revenant to the most tanky D-bombard phantom. Considering that their movement values mean they get to use both their melee profiles and shooting profiles on turn 1 with an Advance order while still hitting on 2s, they seem pretty on par with Knights as well.

EDIT: You mean the repulsor executioner. and I guess in your book, a "modest increase in firepower" means "Nearly triple the total damage." The repulsor executioner also has Fly, which is a huge deal for vehicles whose damage drops down to zero the second someone deep strikes and tags them before they shoot. The executioner gains 30% more damage and loses 60% durability compared to the Land Raider, which is most likely it paying for Fly. It also loses 4 transport slots FWIW.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If you treat each unit as it's own detachment you'd even remove the problem you have with things like "double shoot" cards affecting multiple units.

So now that I'm reading more, what would you do with things like Autarchs which have an ability that hits a detachment.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If you treat each unit as it's own detachment you'd even remove the problem you have with things like "double shoot" cards affecting multiple units.

So now that I'm reading more, what would you do with things like Autarchs which have an ability that hits a detachment.

I mean the simplest thing is that he gets to issue "this unit’s Detachment" the orders, which would mean just himself.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If you treat each unit as it's own detachment you'd even remove the problem you have with things like "double shoot" cards affecting multiple units.

So now that I'm reading more, what would you do with things like Autarchs which have an ability that hits a detachment.

I mean the simplest thing is that he gets to issue "this unit’s Detachment" the orders, which would mean just himself.

Yeah, but that makes him pretty much useless. Just like units and abilities that allow you to generate command cards are useless if you remove command cards as a mechanic.

Removing a mechanic makes units that interact with that mechanic not useful. More at 11.

Honestly, the games I've played at 100PL we each had 3-4 detachments, so the alternating activation system worked just fine. I can see it breaking down around like 50PL or so...but like...don't play Apoc at the 1000pt value level?

If you want an alternating-activation game at the 500-1000pt level, I think Kill Team with Elites and Commanders expansions would probably work a lot better.

the_scotsman wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If you treat each unit as it's own detachment you'd even remove the problem you have with things like "double shoot" cards affecting multiple units.

So now that I'm reading more, what would you do with things like Autarchs which have an ability that hits a detachment.

I mean the simplest thing is that he gets to issue "this unit’s Detachment" the orders, which would mean just himself.

Yeah, but that makes him pretty much useless. Just like units and abilities that allow you to generate command cards are useless if you remove command cards as a mechanic.

Removing a mechanic makes units that interact with that mechanic not useful. More at 11.

Honestly, the games I've played at 100PL we each had 3-4 detachments, so the alternating activation system worked just fine. I can see it breaking down around like 50PL or so...but like...don't play Apoc at the 1000pt value level?

If you want an alternating-activation game at the 500-1000pt level, I think Kill Team with Elites and Commanders expansions would probably work a lot better.

Agree. My tau list managed to squeeze in 5 detachments at 150 PL. It's really not that bad.

You COULD make a version of apoc that functioned on unit activation but it would require a sweep through every unit/card/mechanic to hunt for interactions that no longer work properly and redoing them.

Oh I agree, making it unit by unit would require a re-write, which defeats the whole point.

100PL is very much the lower limit on what can be feasibly played with the Apoc rules. The issue now is how to play games larger than kill team but smaller than 100PL, because Man-Emperor knows 40k isn't a solution.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Oh I agree, making it unit by unit would require a re-write, which defeats the whole point.

100PL is very much the lower limit on what can be feasibly played with the Apoc rules. The issue now is how to play games larger than kill team but smaller than 100PL, because Man-Emperor knows 40k isn't a solution.

To be fair 100 isn't a solid stone foundation either. I played 90 PL nids vs sw and it worked just as well. I don't think you can get much lower before it breaks down. I don't know what the hard limit is. But I do think roughly 100-150 is the sweet spot with some wiggle room.

the_scotsman wrote:


Have I compared a Phantom to a revenant titan? Sure, they're right at the bottom here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hw_7FYeJ7_rMgxDoMVAs7vk9mDSud0mNUDGxBtdAeRE/edit?usp=sharing

Do you mind sharing the formula you used on the shooting and melee average, and durability?

Red_Drake wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:


Have I compared a Phantom to a revenant titan? Sure, they're right at the bottom here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hw_7FYeJ7_rMgxDoMVAs7vk9mDSud0mNUDGxBtdAeRE/edit?usp=sharing

Do you mind sharing the formula you used on the shooting and melee average, and durability?

Sure. Rather than an average, the number I use is more like "total melee potential" since it factors in both SAT and SAP. So, for the Revenant Titan, that would be:

Shooting average

(.417+.417)*.833*4 (Cloudburst Missile Launcher)
(.583+.75)*.833*8 (2 Pulsars)

Melee Average

(.666+.666)*.5*4

Durability: The total number of blasts required to reasonably ensure death. Any -1 to hit type effects I fold into this number even though technically it just takes 1/6 more effort to get the blasts in the first place. The odds of a Revenant Titan failing a save vs a large blast is .666*.833 due to Distortion Fields.

10 wounds/.555 damage per large blast = 18, which would be a durability rating of 36, but the final wound will be a morale test that only succeeds on a 1, which for my formula I have been rounding up. So that gives a durability of 34 for the Revenant titan - you only actually need to get 28 blasts on it to reasonably destroy it, but due to Distortion fields you need to put as much firepower as would be needed to put 34 blasts on something else without -1 to hit.

The math for the Revenant Titan is easier because it goes down to large blasts, but when I encounter a fractional number of blasts required I do look at the odds of failing a save vs a small blast as well.

Disappointed so far. I get why the choices were made (chatting to an ex GW design studio chap that was involved), but they still strike me as wrong.

To whit the decisions around how to make units different and then how it makes cards overly important (to my eyes). I dislike for example that my basilisk and Leman Russ are as tough as each other while it actually matters if I have a heavy stubber or not.Would have been very easy on a D12/D6 system to differentiate the two and really why am I worried about such auxiliary systems in a large scale battle.

Sadly back to Epic if I want to scratch the big battle itch.

I think imperium in particular has a bloat of.options that really could have used some consolidation tyranid style.

My warriors dont have devourers, deathspitters, spine fists, etc...

They just have ranged bio weapon. It gives the unit its place. Sm and ig still have too many options fighting for design space. Trim it back.

My copy arrived yesterday. I’ve been reading through it and I really like the look of it. Seems very simple to play but involved enough to make it interesting.

 Lance845 wrote:
I think imperium in particular has a bloat of.options that really could have used some consolidation tyranid style.

My warriors dont have devourers, deathspitters, spine fists, etc...

They just have ranged bio weapon. It gives the unit its place. Sm and ig still have too many options fighting for design space. Trim it back.

Completely.

Apparently the diversity in minor choices was a design decision influenced by a desire to incorporate peoples model decisions.

But honestly, I don't give a monkeys that my IG squad have almost a dozen heavy weapon options - why couldn't they have either made it something like a AP6+/AT7+ or at most a strong AP or AT choice.

Likewise why do I care about the storm bolter on a tank? Or for that matter choosing from a range of sponsons.

And contrasted to that wealth of choice (which is quickly decided through mathhammer for advantage or simply doesn't matter to others) units that should feel different have identical stat lines, just different guns. That's rubbish.

The_Real_Chris wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
I think imperium in particular has a bloat of.options that really could have used some consolidation tyranid style.

My warriors dont have devourers, deathspitters, spine fists, etc...

They just have ranged bio weapon. It gives the unit its place. Sm and ig still have too many options fighting for design space. Trim it back.

Completely.

Apparently the diversity in minor choices was a design decision influenced by a desire to incorporate peoples model decisions.

But honestly, I don't give a monkeys that my IG squad have almost a dozen heavy weapon options - why couldn't they have either made it something like a AP6+/AT7+ or at most a strong AP or AT choice.

Likewise why do I care about the storm bolter on a tank? Or for that matter choosing from a range of sponsons.

And contrasted to that wealth of choice (which is quickly decided through mathhammer for advantage or simply doesn't matter to others) units that should feel different have identical stat lines, just different guns. That's rubbish.

IG have five heavy weapon options. Mortars have the standard efficiency loss for a Barrage weapon, and are still a quite useful option IMO given how much talk there has been of tiny characters hiding out of LOS.

Your other choice is basically between Lascannon and Missile Launcher, with both autocannon and heavy bolter losing 1/6 of efficiency.

Special weapon" tier weapons disappeared across the board, only showing up in the abstract sense (such as how the Hotshot Lasguns wielded by Scions have better SAT than other Hotshot Lasguns wielded by other units, or how some units have "Special weapons" as a weapon.) They disappeared in nids just like they disappeared in Guard.

Heavy weapons stuck around - see how Nids have Deathspitters/ Devourers/HVC/Stranglethorn/etc weapon options, and Barbed Stranglers/Venom Cannons stuck around on warriors.

Also...wait a second...Termagants DO have Spinefists, Fleshborers, and Devourers to choose from. They're just gone on Warriors where they're not the main armament and where you have fewer models present using them.

the_scotsman wrote:
Special weapon" tier weapons disappeared across the board, only showing up in the abstract sense (such as how the Hotshot Lasguns wielded by Scions have better SAT than other Hotshot Lasguns wielded by other units, or how some units have "Special weapons" as a weapon.) They disappeared in nids just like they disappeared in Guard.

This would be fine except that there's no consistency in how they are represented. IG veterans have only a lasgun equivalent weapon (which for some reason has its own name) and nothing to represent their traditional 3x special weapons (the same as a SWS). An IK gets a different stat line for choosing between a melta gun and a heavy stubber, but an IG infantry squad has to pretend that their melta gun is represented by their SAT 10+ lasguns. But a LRBT has rules to represent the difference between taking a storm bolter vs. a heavy stubber vs. neither, despite this choice being much less significant than whether you arm an infantry squad with a melta gun or a sniper rifle.

They are not JUST gone on warriors. The nid dex is gutted for options (good i say!). Raveners dont have a choice of melee or ranged. Warriors dont have a choice for melee or ranged except for biocannons. Tyrants have very similar consolidation. Fexes have similar consolidation.

Just because some things kept some options doesnt mean most things didnt loose most options. Imperium needs that.

 Lance845 wrote:
They are not JUST gone on warriors. The nid dex is gutted for options (good i say!). Raveners dont have a choice of melee or ranged. Warriors dont have a choice for melee or ranged except for biocannons. Tyrants have very similar consolidation. Fexes have similar consolidation.

Just because some things kept some options doesnt mean most things didnt loose most options. Imperium needs that.

I'm not sure where you're getting that idea.

Carnifexes options in base 40k (from battlescribe):

2 arms:
-Crushing Claws
-Scything Talons
-HVC
-Stranglethorn
-Deathspitters
-Devourers

Carapace
-Spines
-Spores

Head
-Senses
-Plasma
-Acid
-Tusks

Tail
-Mace
-Scythe

Also Toxin Sacs, Adrenal Glands, and the Screamer-Killer, old one eye and Spinyboi variant.

In super-streamlined, stripped down apoc:

Arms

-Carnifex Melee Weapons
-Stranglethorn
-HVC
-Devourers
-Deathspitters

carapace:
Spines
Chitin Thorns

Enhanced Senses still around

Jaws and Tail options gone
Acid and Glands options gone

Screamer, OOE, and Spiney Boi still exist.

So, in all you lose 6 options. but you retain 8 options. That's not so hugely different from the Leman Russ, which really only has the pintle as the pointless choice. It loses the dozer blade, track guards, augur array, all the stuff on par with the fiddly options the Carnifex loses.

Imperial units retain only Heavy Weapon level options and above, except for the pointless pintle mounts which I do agree make no sense pretty much anywhere they appear. All melee options, special weapon swaps outside of squad-level, and a lot of other gearswaps (e.g. Terminators in non-codex chapters losing the ability tot ake melee gear, Deathwatch Veteran options, etc) are also gone. And, for the most part, these options are not terribly balanced against each other.

From the marine heavy weapon list, the only gun not worth looking at is the heavy bolter. Grav Cannons, MMs, Missiles are all statistically identical, with the former paying for specialization with range. Lascannons pay for specialization with a single point of wounding power, Plasma cannons pay for 1/6 increased damage with 1/6 chance to damage yourself. That's a pretty good spread. Honestly, the worst codex for weapon list balance I've seen so far is Custodes: Literally every option they have is a non-option. One choice is always best.

The fex has a choice between 2 guns with a purpose or more expensive 2 bio canons with a purpose. And an optional additional ranged weapon in the form of bioplasma.

The leman rus has every option fighting for design space in the single slot of main weapon.

Again, fex, more anti tank or more anti personel with upgraded versions of each.

Lr, how many varitions on a single big gun? How many are made redundant by the other choices?

The cannons on the Carnifex arguably offer far less use than any of the options on the Leman Russ, because they cannot be paired with any other longrange weaponry, turning the carnifex into something that's simply inferior to other anti tank gunbeast units the nids have. The only guns that have a purpose are the Devourers and Deathspitters, offering a risk/reward proposal for the shorter range and higher damage of the devourers.

Spines are a useless option. There is absolutely no way you want a shooty 'fex that only has jaws anywhere near 6" away from enemy units, and they serve no purpose on a melee fex who should always be taking assault options and should never shoot. Never worth a PL.

Senses are auto-include on any gun fex. There's no reason to not pick them if you have guns, no reason to pick them if you have melee weapons.

Thorns are maybe useful on a melee fex? Kinda doubt it. You'll probably have 3-4 in a group and since there's no purpose in having more than one thorns (They don't stack) your opponent will just shoot the thorn one after they shoot whatever synapse critter you have with them.

I see three useful carnifex builds.2x each type of gun you can have 2 of with senses, and all melee with nothing else (maybe thorns).

Contrast with Russ builds.

The only things you cannot ever justify having are: Battlecannon, Bolter sponsons, executioner.

Demolisher and Punisher give you a high risk high reward build that offers the most damage output vs heavy and light respectively. You can pair the Demolisher with Lascannons and MM sponsons and the Punisher with either just a HB or with Storm Bolter+triple heavy flamers for the most damage output. Triple flamers+Punisher is actually a pretty good build for a basic russ as it mitigates its poor ballistic skill.

Eradicator+hull HB gives you the long range anti-infantry cheap build. Exterminator with Plasma and HB is the most generalist russ. Vanquisher+Lascannon gives long range anti-tank.

Even the heavy stubber deals enough damage to justify 1PL on any russ that'll be hitting on 2s with an aim.

3, arguably 4 out of something like 15 options that actually never have a purpose. Versus like 66% of the options for the carnifex.

The idea that there's 'bloat' in the imperial options while the tyranid options are somehow good is amazing to me. So many of the nid options are total non-choices. Why would you take anything but deathspitters on a Tyrannocyte which gets to Deep Strike into range? A tyrannofex with anything but the Rupture Cannon? Even hive guard where the loss of efficiency is typical for stuff with good SAT it's like...man, they made Shock Cannons a whole lot worse than Impalers, which are actually an amazing commander hunting tool.

Tyranids are great when it comes to "units having a purpose". but not so great when it comes to "options having a purpose."