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.

Cool, so how do I get to play these variable sized squads as Guard?

Because mine are mostly locked in size.

The suggestion of having units bought in 5s wouldn't affect your weird obsession with listbuilding. You can do odd sized units if you want, you just pay based on the 5s.

Okay, so there's probably a few things I'm gunna miss, but off the top of my head:

- Limits Strats: Seems like they are already going this route from the leaks. The ones we do get should be tactical decisions like diving for cover, rather than "focus hard to turn on my transhuman".

- Balance Weapon Options Properly: Weapons should only be free for equivalency. If a Space Marine's gun is free it should be close in stats to a Boltgun, like how Intercessors can take 3 types of Boltguns, they are different but similar in power. Things like Plasma that are straight upgrades need to cost points so they are not auto includes. If this can't be done squad by squad, have an army points value and an equipment points value, maybe 10% or something, then you can have flexibility in how you kit out your armies without all the best options being auto includes.

- Expand the Crusade System: It's a good skeleton, but put some meat on those bones.

- Rules for Legends Models: Please don't leave the Legends units in the dust of 8th/9th. Also units from sets like Blackstone Fortress should be rolled into this.

- More Dynamic Missions: I know it would be tough to balance in competitive, but I'm sick of every mission being hold x objectives. Some like that are fine, but give us different primary situations that force us to be flexible and adapt on the fly. One army shouldn't be able to dominate as easily if no army can be the best in every situation.

- Expand some of the smaller armies: Genestealer Cults, Auxiliaries (for the Tau), Inquisition. Tangentially related to this, finish updating the Aeldari line. (I'm still not playing that army until we get plastic Warp Spiders, I said that over 20 years ago and I'm not breaking first GW!)

- More focus on games not at 2000 points: I know that's the tournament level, but 500pt, 1000pt, and 3000pts are all well played too. 500 has gotten some love with Boarding Action and the new Combat Patrol mode which is something, but I'd like to see a bit more focus on other options too.

- Models with more poseability: For a company trying to sell lots of models, all these mono-pose minis really make me not want to buy multiples of the same unit. I would have gotten a whole bunch of Accursed Cultists if they didn't all look identical. Don't get me wrong, the sculpts are really cool, but for some armies, especially Chaos, things should be unique.

I'm sure I'll think of more later, but that's what I've got for the moment.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Realistically this would only benefit a few armies, most notably as mentioned; Space Marines, Tau, and a couple others. Other factions like Orkz, Demons, Nidz etc would get boned by this hard.

The problem is that what JNA cherrypicked out is factions that have specialized units. Plaguebearers don't have alternate profiles because Daemons, as a faction, have multiple units that can just be swapped out for Plaguebearers.
Aeldari Aspect Warriors were a crazy disingenuous bit to throw out as an example. They're specialized units where the unit leader tends to be the one that has options and the remainder of the squad has their signature weapon.

Complaining that they don't get to change out their weapon is like complaining that you can't run a Terminator Squad in Scout Armour.

It's not cherry-picking you silly goose, that's just an example of a unit that does not benefit like other units do. If every example that shows an idea is bad is cherry-picking then how can you ever use an example? The idea you are defending is just bad, so instead of arguing in bad faith just accept the loss and stop asking for the game to become a MOBA where you buy items at the shop after seeing what enemy you are facing. Then there are the obvious things like replacing bolters with combi-plasma, it cannot and should not be a fair trade without pts. Just go play PL in your Hobbit holes and stop commenting in threads about points.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Cool, so how do I get to play these variable sized squads as Guard?

Because mine are mostly locked in size.

The suggestion of having units bought in 5s wouldn't affect your weird obsession with listbuilding. You can do odd sized units if you want, you just pay based on the 5s.

You can take units of 8 Guardsmen as well. You just pay for the full 10. Bet you never tried that, probably because it'd be silly. Funny that you mention not having access to variable squad sizes as a reason to get rid of them, while dismissing arguments about MOBA wargear as cherry-picking because they're cherry-picked NPC factions. Get a grip.

Heafstaag wrote:
Alex....just no.

Having the flexibility in list building to make your squads actually YOUR squads is part of what makes 40k fun.

LIST BUILDING!

Being able to take odd numbers in squads is great when you have a small amount of points left over, or fitting in a squad plus a character in a transport. Having to actual decide and think about which types of upgrades to give your units as they all have pros and cons is great.

It makes you think about your list and how you want to run it.

What you are proposing and just as bland is age of sigmar!

I see a lot of false equivalencies, but not a lot of actual problems here.

Odd squads don't do much other than allow you to fill every last point and fit into arbitrary transportation limits.

Making your squads YOUR squads has nothing to do with how many models are in it. Nobody decides to bring 9 models in a unit because MY squad is down a member and its not like you can choose to go over or under the limits set in the rules. Nobody decides to not upgrade a squad because in MY squad the Plasmagun exploded killing Jenkins and the quartermaster refuses to give us a new special weapon. No that is all about the points. If it isn't an option, you will find other ways to the squad YOUR squad. Probably with nice paint jobs and cool conversions or bits.

As for transport size, many transports for many factions have space for a full squad and a character (or two). Drukhari Raiders used to have a transport capacity of 10 models. They now can hold 11 models. There was a time when GW allowed a 12 model capacity in Rhinos. Heck, they do that today in Horus Heresy.

So, I'll leave you with your quote

In the words of the great Michael Jordan:
Stop it, Get some help!

Making the squads and army my army rather than one that everyone takes is what I mean. The different upgrades all costing different points, with pros and cons to each option, is what I'm talking about.

The thing about AoS is that for most unit, from what I've seen, you have at most one option-sometimes spears instead of swords, for example, or maybe you can take shields too.Ok, that's fine...but they there's no point cost to it. Its bland- it doesn't affect the list.

The choice of taking a flamer of a melta should have pros- killing more light infantry, and being cheap (as of now), but also cons- not doing much against heavy monsters and vehicles (though you do save a few points, so maybe you can get another flamer somewhere else!)

Its these types of choices that have been in 40k since I started in 5th edition, and were around in Fantasy when I played in 7th. And what do you know, they are in warhammer ancient battles as well! You can pay to make unit have better saves, better weapons,etc, but it costs points- which means you can't take something else in the list.

That is what i'm trying to convey, and maybe I'm doing a poor job of it?

What you are proposing SEEMS to be taking alot of the fun and choice and planning from list building and playing.

And what "choice" are you realistically making?

You're not getting capped at the number of units you double the size of(Reinforced Units in AoS have a cap), you're not getting dinged the full points cost of a unit by taking MSUs.

This "Making my army my army" only seems to matter when it affects number-crunchers. Where the hell was this outrage for the various factions that have had things locked to match boxes?

 Kanluwen wrote:
And what "choice" are you realistically making?

You're not getting capped at the number of units you double the size of(Reinforced Units in AoS have a cap), you're not getting dinged the full points cost of a unit by taking MSUs.

This "Making my army my army" only seems to matter when it affects number-crunchers. Where the hell was this outrage for the various factions that have had things locked to match boxes?

All over the place. People HATE that. Seriously-there's been multiple threads on how garbage that is.

 Kanluwen wrote:
And what "choice" are you realistically making?

The choice to luxuriously upgrade a unit for multidisciplinary maximum effectiveness vs. minimal upgrades for a specific supporting role, for example.

But I don't expect you to understand.

 Kanluwen wrote:
And what "choice" are you realistically making?

You're not getting capped at the number of units you double the size of(Reinforced Units in AoS have a cap), you're not getting dinged the full points cost of a unit by taking MSUs.

This "Making my army my army" only seems to matter when it affects number-crunchers. Where the hell was this outrage for the various factions that have had things locked to match boxes?

I don't like that about AoS. I think most people are fine with unit caps, but adding models to a unit should be on a per model basis

I don't what you mean by match boxes.

If you are referring to options being taken away over the past couple of years to only what is in the box then I would say I totally disagree with that. Taking options away from units that have had them for ages is lame! More options and granularity, please.

Also, not sure what you are referring to as number crunchers? Tournament players? Math hammer?

I just want a very straight forward list building process.

Stratagems put me off, as given how much they could boost your performance I found myself self-limiting choices in a way I don’t like.

For me, a lot of the fun comes from trying out unusual lists. Sometimes themed, sometimes “internet says these units are crap, but I’ll find away” self challenges.

Yes I could do that with Stratagems existing, but if you came up against someone really familiar with how to play to Stratagems, the game just stopped being fun as you’d get stomped.

That’s not to say “therefore stratagems should never have existed”. Just I don’t particularly enjoy the game mechanics punishing me for not being an expert list maker.

 Kanluwen wrote:

A single Tac Marine Squad starting at 5 models gets to take the Sgt and a single Heavy OR Special. That isn't new.

And why are we still using Tac Marines as the "baseline"? Look at Intercessors of the normal and Heavy variety. It's 1 special pick per 5, same as Ork Boyz with their 1 per 10.

Never said it was new, I was pointing out that the difference in value is heavy! Even if you stay at 5models for tac Marines its still upwards of 40pts or more savings (Lascannon/MM and Sgt with Kombi or Plasma/Powerfist) As far as why I use Tacs as the Baseline, because i've used them as a Baseline unit for decades?

 Kanluwen wrote:

A boys squad can choose about 8, and 6 of them are different weapons for the Nob.
Beast snagga boyz can take 1 5pt Thump gun per 10 models
Grots...they don't get upgrades.

Its a bit silly to suggest this as a viable alternative when there is no comparison between weapon upgrades. A unit of 10 boyz can realistically get a free rokkit and a Nob with a pair of killsaws (over priced atm) for 25pts of free stuff. As was already covered under the AoO shenanigans, a Tac squad can (currently) take 50-60pts of free stuff.

Now go look at Kommandos, Nobs, and Meganobs.

You're cherrypicking. Ork Boyz have box locked loadouts. Congrats, you're screwed like everyone else.

yes, that must be it, i'm cherry picking by comparing two troops choices that have been compared against one another for decades...the same two troops choices that I myself have compared against one another on these very forums for years....

Kommandos: 8 possible upgrades including Nob. Unless you are counting the Bomb Squig and Distraction grot, then its 9.
Nobz: Choice of 7 upgrades as well.
Meganobz: 3 upgrades, 4 if you count the 2nd killsaw.

So, I compared a troops choice, or actually ALL my orkish troops choices to Tac Marines, you compared those troops choices to 3 elite choices. Ok well i better throw out an elite choice as well then I guess. How bout...

Sternguard Veterans: 26ish options? Grav Cannon, Heavy Bolter, lascannon, Multi-Melta, Missile Launcher, Plasma Cannon, Flamer, Grav Gun, Meltagun, Plasma Gun, Heavy Flamer, Lightning Claw, Poweraxe, power fist, power maul, power sword, combi flamer, combi grav, combi melta, combi plasma, stormbolter, bolt pistol, grav pistol, plasma pistol, Chainsword, special issue boltgun? Sound about right? So that 1 unit has 1 fewer option than all my troops and the 3 elite choices you picked put together.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Realistically this would only benefit a few armies, most notably as mentioned; Space Marines, Tau, and a couple others. Other factions like Orkz, Demons, Nidz etc would get boned by this hard.

The problem is that what JNA cherrypicked out is factions that have specialized units. Plaguebearers don't have alternate profiles because Daemons, as a faction, have multiple units that can just be swapped out for Plaguebearers.
Aeldari Aspect Warriors were a crazy disingenuous bit to throw out as an example. They're specialized units where the unit leader tends to be the one that has options and the remainder of the squad has their signature weapon.

Complaining that they don't get to change out their weapon is like complaining that you can't run a Terminator Squad in Scout Armour.

Its not the fact that those units are "specialize" its the fact that those "Specialized" factions immediately lose out unless GW drastically changes their points value. Giving all upgrades for free but not adjusting units without upgrades just makes that unit worse. I'm not going to even guess at the motive for why you think this is a good idea but from someone who plays competitively I can say it would be a bad idea.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 alextroy wrote:


First, charging point for units instead of models allows GW to better adjust the cost of units between each other. You don't have the problem of trying to decide if a single model is 15 or 16 points if you have the option of making the 5-model unit worth anywhere from 75 to 90 points. And while it might be APITA to deal with proscripted unit sizes, you once again lose that same issue of optimal per/model cost and optimal unit model count. You ever notice that Troops squads are normally always minimal strength, but people will carefully calibrate just how many models their good units should have? Wipe that balancing problem away if the unit is either size X, Y, or Z as far as points are concerned.

charging points for units instead of models does not allow for better cost adjustments between units, in fact it does the exact opposite. All it does is give a singular cost to a single unit that can't be modified. You suggested still having some upgrades cost points....but why the hell do that in the first place if the entire premise was getting rid of costed upgrades? You can't say get rid of them and its better for the game while simultaneously saying "but the upgrades will be paid for but not as much".

As far as troops choices always being minimal...um yeah, GW actively killed large units this edition. Just last edition you had Ork lists showing up with HORDES of boyz all in mobz of 30. GW wrote so many rules to kill Horde factions and then nerfed horde play style at the codex level that there is literally no reason to run hordes, GW killed them.

 alextroy wrote:
On the side of unit upgrades, I don't know about you, but I want to see that lovely lore compliant army across the field from me. Why don't you get that? Because the rules actively discourage that in favor of the most efficient choices. Don't upgrade that unit at all because the upgrades aren't worth the points. Don't use that upgrade because the other one is a more efficient choice. The way to battle these problems are:

This reads like you want fluffy games which I understand, go for it. But at the competitive level your suggestions would be terrible and lead to ridiculous levels of imbalance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

This "Making my army my army" only seems to matter when it affects number-crunchers. Where the hell was this outrage for the various factions that have had things locked to match boxes?

Hi, my name is Sempermortis and I've been against units being locked to whats in the box from the start Please read my comments on Lootas/Burnas to your hearts content

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
And what "choice" are you realistically making?

You're not getting capped at the number of units you double the size of(Reinforced Units in AoS have a cap), you're not getting dinged the full points cost of a unit by taking MSUs.

This "Making my army my army" only seems to matter when it affects number-crunchers. Where the hell was this outrage for the various factions that have had things locked to match boxes?

All over the place. People HATE that. Seriously-there's been multiple threads on how garbage that is.

Sure, but that poster wasn't griping about it there. Just whining about how it's unfair that for whatever reason they would have to buy units based on increments of the unit's minimum size rather than anything else.

I hope every single one of you get locked into what a Guard Infantry Squad is going forward. I hope 40k becomes Age of the Emprah. AND that you lot have to deal with the silly rules too! Bwhahaha!

I hope for the comeback of Platoons. Neener neener

 generalchaos34 wrote:
With a new edition looming its time to get our finkin' caps on and get our hopes up before they are summarily dashed.

One of my fervent hopes for the future is that they scale up the point values of games to add more granularity in list building. By this I mean I want to see us go from 2000pts for a big game to 3-4 thousand. This way we wont have an arms race for the bottom spot for guardsman and cultists and give more flexibility to troops in the mid tier like sisters and hearthkyn with their point values instead of being defined by a VERY narrow band before they are competing with space marines and losing.

I'd also like to continue the trend of free upgrades outside of a chosen few like with the latest space marines. It makes sense and will generally make list building much easier (if only they would make special weapons more....specialized to be mission specific instead of a clear winner like plasma).

What would you like to see happen to point values?

I do hope that point value are phased out by 11th in favor of Power Levels, and that 40k cease to be a customization nightmare.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I hope for the comeback of Platoons. Neener neener

How.
Dare.
You.



Frankly, 40k is long overdue to go to "Squads are bought in multiples of base unit size" for points. It works far, far better than people seem to want to pretend it does.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I hope for the comeback of Platoons. Neener neener

How.
Dare.
You.



Frankly, 40k is long overdue to go to "Squads are bought in multiples of base unit size" for points. It works far, far better than people seem to want to pretend it does.

Why not play PL if that's what you're looking for? That's how it works there.
I don't like PL, and would like to keep Points much more granular.

SemperMortis wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
On the side of unit upgrades, I don't know about you, but I want to see that lovely lore compliant army across the field from me. Why don't you get that? Because the rules actively discourage that in favor of the most efficient choices. Don't upgrade that unit at all because the upgrades aren't worth the points. Don't use that upgrade because the other one is a more efficient choice. The way to battle these problems are:

This reads like you want fluffy games which I understand, go for it. But at the competitive level your suggestions would be terrible and lead to ridiculous levels of imbalance.

Yes. I want a fluffier game. There is no reason a game cannot be both fluffy and competitive. That is a matter of structure. GW has failed to make fluffy armies competitive because it is too easy to leech efficiency out of being non-fluffy.

Now explain to me how does free upgrades lead to ridiculous levels of imbalance, assuming the upgrades are of equal value and the units are valued with the upgrades in their cost?

Its just the same arguments as PL.
"But what if I want 10 guys with no special weapons" - well you don't.
"But what if that's how I built the squad 10+ years ago".
"Then buy another one"
"REEEE."

If GW can write rules such that special weapons are broadly speaking equal in power - or the gap is incidental - and/or the few are significantly better have a points cost while the others don't - then it won't matter.

And yes - if GW priced things up as unit sizes based on the boxes they sell, then again, I'm not sure it will matter. There will be complaining but people will quickly adjust and I suspect the vast majority of people's collections would match said boxes anyway.

 alextroy wrote:

Now explain to me how does free upgrades lead to ridiculous levels of imbalance, assuming the upgrades are of equal value and the units are valued with the upgrades in their cost?

Because to be fluff accurate, different weapons should be worth more than others. Fluff-wise, a Powerfist is more powerful than a Chainsword. Therefore, for both options to be both competetive AND fluff accurate, they should have different costs.

If weapons are background imbalanced and cost different points, then nobody uses them because GW can't get the points right. Wouldn't it be better to balance the weapons against each other and thereby make the job of finding the correct cost easier?

It doesn't matter if the cost ends up being 0 points, 2 points, 5 points, or 10 points, if most options are of the same relative value (on a per unit basis) to makes finding the proper cost easier. And this can be easier in a system where you have more variables in the weapons themselves. A Powerfist will always be stronger than a Chainsword, but that doesn't mean a Chainsword and a Power Weapon (not Powerfist) can't be roughly equal, with the Chainsword better for killing light infantry and the Power Weapon better against medium/heavy infantry.

Just because most upgrades can be of relative value doesn't mean all of them need be. But it would be great if there were only a few ranges with cost that make them worth using, not the mess we have today.

 alextroy wrote:
Now explain to me how does free upgrades lead to ridiculous levels of imbalance, assuming the upgrades are of equal value and the units are valued with the upgrades in their cost?

Because something that makes you better than the baseline shouldn't be free. If something is better than something else, then there should be a cost associated with it, as if it's free why would you ever not take it? It doesn't matter whether all the upgrades are balanced against one another, they are an upgrade to the baseline, and thus need to have an associated cost.

 Kanluwen wrote:
... weird obsession with listbuilding.

Building lists, and points systems, have been part of this game since Rogue Trader. I know you hate this, but the only "obsession" here is your continual fight against these systems.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

Now explain to me how does free upgrades lead to ridiculous levels of imbalance, assuming the upgrades are of equal value and the units are valued with the upgrades in their cost?

Because to be fluff accurate, different weapons should be worth more than others. Fluff-wise, a Powerfist is more powerful than a Chainsword. Therefore, for both options to be both competetive AND fluff accurate, they should have different costs.

you are correct however the double edged sword here is that with all the myriad options that you have it comes down to this choice is good This choice is situational at best and the other five are useless crap that aren't worth acknowledging at all. At least if it's all free then you're not as punished for taking a flamer instead of a meltagun Because the former is pretty much useless and isn't worth the points in the first place.

Maybe they should go back to having a default loadout which is free and then points are to swap it out So for example flamer and missile launcher are the baseline for a tactical squad and don't cost you anything but if you want it let's say a meltagun and lascannon then it costs points

 alextroy wrote:
If weapons are background imbalanced and cost different points, then nobody uses them because GW can't get the points right.

Well that's quite a stretch. "Nobody" is a pretty absolutist position to take.

Wouldn't it be better to balance the weapons against each other and thereby make the job of finding the correct cost easier?

If your claim is that GW can't balance weapons with points, why would they then suddenly find the skill to balance them without points?

Also, are you suggesting that a chainsword should be as effective as a power fist? Because that would be quite unfluffy.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
If weapons are background imbalanced and cost different points, then nobody uses them because GW can't get the points right.

Well that's quite a stretch. "Nobody" is a pretty absolutist position to take.

If you really want to get into this silliness, then maybe we just need to start removing some weapons from some units.

I'm 100% game for Guard to lose things like Plasma Guns, Volley Guns, and Mortars in basic squads and locking them into specific, purpose built units.

Wouldn't it be better to balance the weapons against each other and thereby make the job of finding the correct cost easier?

If your claim is that GW can't balance weapons with points, why would they then suddenly find the skill to balance them without points?

Also, are you suggesting that a chainsword should be as effective as a power fist? Because that would be quite unfluffy.

You know that while chainswords are free, the Power Fist costs points in many cases right?

 Kanluwen wrote:
I'm 100% game for Guard to lose things like Plasma Guns, Volley Guns, and Mortars in basic squads and locking them into specific, purpose built units.

Why?

How would that improve anything other than invalidating existing units/armies/models? Why are you so insistent in removing options?

 Kanluwen wrote:

Where the hell was this outrage for the various factions that have had things locked to match boxes?

Have you been anywhere on the internet ever? Hell, have you even been here?

 Kanluwen wrote:

Wouldn't it be better to balance the weapons against each other and thereby make the job of finding the correct cost easier?

If your claim is that GW can't balance weapons with points, why would they then suddenly find the skill to balance them without points?

Also, are you suggesting that a chainsword should be as effective as a power fist? Because that would be quite unfluffy.

You know that while chainswords are free, the Power Fist costs points in many cases right?

You understand the proposal I was responding to was removing differentiating points values for wargear, right?

If certain weapons are such a difficult bit to balance when able to be fielded en masse?
Don't let them be. Infantry Squads, for example, have zero reason to be running around with a Plasma Gun and a Mortar. Mortars are specialist tools that should be locked to the Heavy Weapons Team and Plasma Guns are supposed to be relatively rare weapons.

Excising them from Troops choices ain't a bad move, no matter what you lot seem to think.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Wouldn't it be better to balance the weapons against each other and thereby make the job of finding the correct cost easier?

If your claim is that GW can't balance weapons with points, why would they then suddenly find the skill to balance them without points?

Also, are you suggesting that a chainsword should be as effective as a power fist? Because that would be quite unfluffy.

You know that while chainswords are free, the Power Fist costs points in many cases right?

You understand the proposal I was responding to was removing differentiating points values for wargear, right?

We interpreted Alex's quote vastly differently, I guess.

I read it not as "removing differentiating points values for wargear" but rather as "accepting that certain items cannot accurately be pointed unless actually balanced against each other".

Kan does have a point. If certain options are imbalanced not due to existing but being readily available in spammable units, it makes sense to "balance" that by removing them from the spammable unit and out them exclusively in more controlled units.

For instance if plasma is being spammed all over by 5-man Troop squads, disallow them to be taken in Troops entirely, but can be taken by the more expensive and limited Veterans.

Wayniac wrote:
Kan does have a point. If certain options are imbalanced not due to existing but being readily available in spammable units, it makes sense to "balance" that by removing them from the spammable unit and out them exclusively in more controlled units.

For instance if plasma is being spammed all over by 5-man Troop squads, disallow them to be taken in Troops entirely, but can be taken by the more expensive and limited Veterans.

Kan has zero point.
Make the Plasma slightly more expensive. This isn't rocket science.