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.

But it's not escalating. It's simply updating armies. Orks aren't more oppressive than SM, nor are Thousand Sons or Grey Knights. They were all released after Drukhari and Ad Mech, the current top tiers, that's why I disagree about the escalating argument.

you can have escalating lethality without needing every single codex to constantly be getting more lethal then the one before.

Yeah.

First, the game itself is escalating even if not all factions are escalating equally.

Second, more or less all codexes are escalations of the previous version. Even if they don't escalate at the same rate as others (and they don't because 40ks balance is non-existent).

 warmaster21 wrote:
Im all for turning infanty weapons back down a few notches. though id take it 1 further and man portable weapons should be WEAKER than those mounted on vehicles or carried by weapon teams. like take a look at a landraider vs infantry with las cannons, same stats, but sorry bro the power generators and heat sinks are too massive cant carry as many units.

Thats not a thing tho?

I really liked the Force Organisation Chart. It was possible to abuse it, but it made armies look like actual armies.

 Da Boss wrote:
I really liked the Force Organisation Chart. It was possible to abuse it, but it made armies look like actual armies.

Sadly they killed it in 7th, and the zombie corpse we have now isn't really the same thing.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 warmaster21 wrote:
Im all for turning infanty weapons back down a few notches. though id take it 1 further and man portable weapons should be WEAKER than those mounted on vehicles or carried by weapon teams. like take a look at a landraider vs infantry with las cannons, same stats, but sorry bro the power generators and heat sinks are too massive cant carry as many units.

Thats not a thing tho?

Isn't it? Thought that was the concept behind the Crusader/Redeemer holding more.

 Eldarain wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 warmaster21 wrote:
Im all for turning infanty weapons back down a few notches. though id take it 1 further and man portable weapons should be WEAKER than those mounted on vehicles or carried by weapon teams. like take a look at a landraider vs infantry with las cannons, same stats, but sorry bro the power generators and heat sinks are too massive cant carry as many units.

Thats not a thing tho?

Isn't it? Thought that was the concept behind the Crusader/Redeemer holding more.

You are correct. The lore reason behind the Crusaders bigger capacity is because they didn't need the bulky capacitors for the Lascannons.

To be fair, there's a certain absurdity in putting infantry-portable weapons on tanks anyways; especially in twin mounts.

If you can twin mount a lesser weapon, then you can single mount a greater weapon that's more likely to bonk the enemy on the head to death in a single shot.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
To be fair, there's a certain absurdity in putting infantry-portable weapons on tanks anyways; especially in twin mounts.

If you can twin mount a lesser weapon, then you can single mount a greater weapon that's more likely to bonk the enemy on the head to death in a single shot.

I generally put that up to "40K thought", (which is to say backwards or sideways thinking). Could be a logistics thing, as parts become easier to service or maintain. But it could also be that the technology to make "an even biggerer laser cannon" is just lost to them. It could also be tradition at this point too, as using weapons ordained by the Emperor Himself during the Great Crusade is just part of the logic of military thought.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
To be fair, there's a certain absurdity in putting infantry-portable weapons on tanks anyways; especially in twin mounts.

If you can twin mount a lesser weapon, then you can single mount a greater weapon that's more likely to bonk the enemy on the head to death in a single shot.

I wonder why an M1 Abrams mounts a .30 Cal and .50 Cal then?

I really can't understand where most of this thread is coming from. Adding restrictions takes away choices, and doesn't make the game more interesting.

In fact, if there's a problem with 9th, it's that *everything* is important. From army selection, to list building, to terrain on the table, positioning, movement, mission selection, objective marker placement, secondaries selection, even whether to add a special weapon to a squad or a tank. The list of what is important goes on and on.

The old editions had their own problems that people are forgetting. 12" rapid fire weapons? Sucks when there is no overwatch and your opponent is charging from 13" away. Vehicles? worthless because they'd get popped with 1 hit. Space Marines? Barely more effective than a guardsman. Too much terrain, then shooting armies were worthless. No objective markers, so movement didn't matter that much. Had to fire a Lascannon at the same target as a bolter, or couldn't fire it if you moved? Then just don't take the lascannon.

Again, all those restrictions subtracted from the game, they didn't add anything.

So now we place more terrain on the table. Shooting is more lethal, but positioning matters just as much to score objectives and shoot your opponent while minimizing return fire and charges. HtH matters. Movement matters to get on objectives and get into range for HtH. Movement matters so if you get charged the enemy can't pile into the unit behind the one that got charged.

The problem is AdMech and Ork flyers are getting around the terrain restriction, so except for those, everything matters.

If someone is saying nothing matters, it's not that it doesn't matter, it's that they have given up rather than focusing and making it matter (flyers excepted of course).

Even still, most games aren't at the top-tier competitive level where flyers rule the roost, and if someone is playing at the top-tier tournament level, you can bet they would take those skew lists if they could, so there is plenty to learn and try and master.

 Da Boss wrote:
I really liked the Force Organisation Chart. It was possible to abuse it, but it made armies look like actual armies.

Honestly, "Competitive armies dont look like real armies" isnt a complaint I have now. I think theyve almost nailed that aspect of things to the ground.

"oh man, have you seen this DISGUSTING ork army, it's got....ork bikers, a warbike HQ, a mek, buggies, and planes. It...yeah that's nothing like what the orks should be...in lore..."

 the_scotsman wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
I really liked the Force Organisation Chart. It was possible to abuse it, but it made armies look like actual armies.

Honestly, "Competitive armies dont look like real armies" isnt a complaint I have now. I think theyve almost nailed that aspect of things to the ground.

"oh man, have you seen this DISGUSTING ork army, it's got....ork bikers, a warbike HQ, a mek, buggies, and planes. It...yeah that's nothing like what the orks should be...in lore..."

Barely any Boyz tho, from what I hear.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
To be fair, there's a certain absurdity in putting infantry-portable weapons on tanks anyways; especially in twin mounts.

If you can twin mount a lesser weapon, then you can single mount a greater weapon that's more likely to bonk the enemy on the head to death in a single shot.

I generally put that up to "40K thought", (which is to say backwards or sideways thinking). Could be a logistics thing, as parts become easier to service or maintain. But it could also be that the technology to make "an even biggerer laser cannon" is just lost to them. It could also be tradition at this point too, as using weapons ordained by the Emperor Himself during the Great Crusade is just part of the logic of military thought.

Could also just be 40k universe physics where two weak shots generally works better than one strong shot unless the strong shot is a lot stronger.

The Newman wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
To be fair, there's a certain absurdity in putting infantry-portable weapons on tanks anyways; especially in twin mounts.

If you can twin mount a lesser weapon, then you can single mount a greater weapon that's more likely to bonk the enemy on the head to death in a single shot.

I generally put that up to "40K thought", (which is to say backwards or sideways thinking). Could be a logistics thing, as parts become easier to service or maintain. But it could also be that the technology to make "an even biggerer laser cannon" is just lost to them. It could also be tradition at this point too, as using weapons ordained by the Emperor Himself during the Great Crusade is just part of the logic of military thought.

Could also just be 40k universe physics where two weak shots generally works better than one strong shot unless the strong shot is a lot stronger.

Heh. Doesn't help that Twin linked has gone through the gammut of:

Roll once to hit, twice to pen.
Reroll to hit, once to pen
Roll twice to hit and twice to pen

brainpsyk wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
To be fair, there's a certain absurdity in putting infantry-portable weapons on tanks anyways; especially in twin mounts.

If you can twin mount a lesser weapon, then you can single mount a greater weapon that's more likely to bonk the enemy on the head to death in a single shot.

I wonder why an M1 Abrams mounts a .30 Cal and .50 Cal then?

So the lascannons on the Land Raider are it's tertiary and secondary weapon systems?

What, does that make the Heavy Bolter the primary weapon?

 Insectum7 wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
I really liked the Force Organisation Chart. It was possible to abuse it, but it made armies look like actual armies.

Honestly, "Competitive armies dont look like real armies" isnt a complaint I have now. I think theyve almost nailed that aspect of things to the ground.

"oh man, have you seen this DISGUSTING ork army, it's got....ork bikers, a warbike HQ, a mek, buggies, and planes. It...yeah that's nothing like what the orks should be...in lore..."

Barely any Boyz tho, from what I hear.

Bikaz are boyz.
Just on a bike. They even were coretroops in the past when you fielded a warbika waaaghboss.
What you See there is a typical heiza warband.

If anything csm have subfactions that Look nothing Like they should...

In the past they were still 1W models though, firing 3 twin linked shoots with crappy BS and crappy AP. Now they have 3W and 10 shots in dakka range, 12 during the Speedwaaagh and with a point of cumulative AP. If Freeboota they may also hit on 4s. For basically the same points cost they had in older editions: exactly the same in 3rd and a bit more expensive than 4th and 7th editions bikers, when they could have been troops.

They're nothing like the unit they used to be, now they're definitely more than just boyz on a bike, even if boyz have the same value of T now. They're closer to light vehicles.

Yeah. Although technically the rider of a Bike is a Boy, that's really not what I'm talking about. I'm talking big mobs of 30 Orkses rampaging about on foot, or in the case of a Kult of Speed setup, Trukks loaded with Boyz ramming their way forward and swarming opposing units.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

brainpsyk wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
To be fair, there's a certain absurdity in putting infantry-portable weapons on tanks anyways; especially in twin mounts.

If you can twin mount a lesser weapon, then you can single mount a greater weapon that's more likely to bonk the enemy on the head to death in a single shot.

I wonder why an M1 Abrams mounts a .30 Cal and .50 Cal then?

So the lascannons on the Land Raider are it's tertiary and secondary weapon systems?

What, does that make the Heavy Bolter the primary weapon?

Don't be foolish. Weapons vary depending on need & role, not everything mounts the biggest gun they can. Humvees can mount .50 cal, .30 cal, TOW, etc, just like a Leman Russ, or a Predator. In the 40K universe, LasCannons are portable as they don't require massive amounts of ammo, just a power pack to get them thru the the engagement. Vehicles will have the power generators and additional ammo storage so they can fight longer, but those mechanics aren't represented in the game.

brainpsyk wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

brainpsyk wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
To be fair, there's a certain absurdity in putting infantry-portable weapons on tanks anyways; especially in twin mounts.

If you can twin mount a lesser weapon, then you can single mount a greater weapon that's more likely to bonk the enemy on the head to death in a single shot.

I wonder why an M1 Abrams mounts a .30 Cal and .50 Cal then?

So the lascannons on the Land Raider are it's tertiary and secondary weapon systems?

What, does that make the Heavy Bolter the primary weapon?

Don't be foolish. Weapons vary depending on need & role, not everything mounts the biggest gun they can. Humvees can mount .50 cal, .30 cal, TOW, etc, just like a Leman Russ, or a Predator. In the 40K universe, LasCannons are portable as they don't require massive amounts of ammo, just a power pack to get them thru the the engagement. Vehicles will have the power generators and additional ammo storage so they can fight longer, but those mechanics aren't represented in the game.

Yes, but as a general rule for a main battle tank primary weapon system, one big gun is better than two littler ones.

Now, I actually like the Land Raider as an IFV, not an MBT, and it excels in that role imo.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Yeah. Although technically the rider of a Bike is a Boy, that's really not what I'm talking about. I'm talking big mobs of 30 Orkses rampaging about on foot, or in the case of a Kult of Speed setup, Trukks loaded with Boyz ramming their way forward and swarming opposing units.

Well you see, what happened was that boyz went up in price, despite getting less durable from nerfing of kff, less mobile from nerfing of warboss and weirdboy, and also losing a bunch of sources of +1 attack.

There’s also internal stuff where for +1 point you can get a kommando which moves faster, deploys up the board, is monumentally tougher, and has more wargear.

Bikers are boyz though, and they’re one of the few units I feel is good and fluffy in the ork dex.

 alextroy wrote:
I think a lot could be done for the current version of 40K if you moved restrictions into the army building phase of the game. It's often been said games of 40K are won or lost in the army construction phase. I don't think that is strictly true, but it's not a 0% factor either. The current ruleset basically allows so much freedom that you a well constructed army is so much more powerful than a thematic army in most cases.

But imagine what a difference it would make to the game played if more restrictions or requirements were made for army composition along with better designed points valuations? I'm talking things like:

Less min-maxing detachment options

Point Values that actually include the value of unit leaders and MSU unit selections

Requirements to take more then just minimum-sized units

Points value that encourage unit upgrades rather than bare-bone tax units

People would still be min-maxing even if there were requirements. It's why people in certain editions always had "the best" tax unit available to their force and then went all out elsewhere.

Min-maxing kinda comes with the territory of wargames unless you remove army building entirely out of players' hands.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da Boss wrote:
I really liked the Force Organisation Chart. It was possible to abuse it, but it made armies look like actual armies.

Depends on the group you played with. Where I played it was still spam what was best and then there were some cheap troops to fill the tax. An actual army for me doesn't really look like 3x5 marine scouts(I'd argue Tac Squads and Intercessors make Marines feel more like an army) and then the rest is what is best.

It's why I'd want GW to focus on making troop slot units actually viable so you can see the core of the army better. I feel they did this much better in AoS 2.0, before the monster and hero meta of 3.0

Yeah it's definitely true that people will still game a FOC. That's fixable though, you can for example require 1 tactical squad - the old Tau army used to require 1 fire warriors squad.

I like detachments.

I've never been a soldier, but detachments seem to make tactical sense to me more than an FOC ever did.

Furthermore, detachment abuse was MOSTLY and 8th thing, when the number of CP you got was based on which detachments you used.

Now, the only detachments that don't COST you CP are the ones that have troops built in (Patrol, Battalion, Brigade), and even then, they're only free if they include your Warlord, so you're incentivized to only include one.

So if you include a detachment of another army, first off, it breaks you purity bonus, and second, you pay for the second detachment, even if it's a Patrol, a Battalion or a Brigade.

And if you include multiple subfaction- say SOB Valorous Heart + Bloody Rose, you get to keep army purity, but you still pay for the second detachment with CP.

Complaints about detachments were totally legit in 8th. In 9th, I just don't see it. Am I missing something?

The problem with detachments is they don't offer any meaningful restrictions. It's entirely possible to throw any units you want into an army and figure out which of the myriad detachment options you can use to represent it. You're not really building to a detachment any more, you're just taking whatever you want because it will inevitably fit into one of the legal options barring some weird outlier forces.

You read the part about them costing CP if they don't include troops AND your Warlord, right?

That's this new fangled thing we call an Estrictionray.

I think the detachments are okay.

The problem with detachments is mostly a scale issue rather than anything else.

A tank company, a detachment of Imperial Knights... whatever - those are all reasonable forces.

those are NOT all reasonable forces when you care about the difference between a sword and a club on any given man.

PenitentJake wrote:
You read the part about them costing CP if they don't include troops AND your Warlord, right?

That's this new fangled thing we call an Estrictionray.

Yes. I'm not talking about literally any combination of units, I'm talking about anything even vaguely attempting to be built as an army will fit into one of the options. Knowing you need at least one HQ, for example, is kind of required for my point to stand but is also assumed to be understood rather than explicitly spelled out.

I don't view the CP costs as being meaningful costs given that the ability to build armies free of meaningful restrictions can easily overcome such a trivial cost.

 Eldarsif wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
I think a lot could be done for the current version of 40K if you moved restrictions into the army building phase of the game. It's often been said games of 40K are won or lost in the army construction phase. I don't think that is strictly true, but it's not a 0% factor either. The current ruleset basically allows so much freedom that you a well constructed army is so much more powerful than a thematic army in most cases.

But imagine what a difference it would make to the game played if more restrictions or requirements were made for army composition along with better designed points valuations? I'm talking things like:

Less min-maxing detachment options

Point Values that actually include the value of unit leaders and MSU unit selections

Requirements to take more then just minimum-sized units

Points value that encourage unit upgrades rather than bare-bone tax units

People would still be min-maxing even if there were requirements. It's why people in certain editions always had "the best" tax unit available to their force and then went all out elsewhere.

Min-maxing kinda comes with the territory of wargames unless you remove army building entirely out of players' hands.

While true, the way you build the rules for creating a list can completely change what min-maxing is. To take a simple example, the cost of 10 Tactical Marines is exactly the same if you take two 5-model squads as one 10-model squad. One option has two Sergeants for the exact same points cost. That is bad design and leads to units and forces that don't reflect the background.