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.

In one sense you're right but only because GW have decided that if you want even a sniff of character-customisation then you have to sacrifice literally everything else.

For example, even the 'Archon' version of the character isn't actually an Archon for the purposes of any rules. So if I'm trying to make an Archon to lead a Kabalite Cartel (i.e. the only detachment I actually like), then he can't actually use the core stratagem because he's an "Archtormemtor" not an "Archon".

Likewise, I can make a winged ""Haemonculus"" but I can't e.g. use Postmortality to revive him because he's not actually a Haemonculus.

(I'd mention enhancements but they're not permitted anyway, because heaven forbid we have too much customisation.)

I guess what I'm saying is that the ability to finally have a winged/Jetbike HQ feels like a rather hollow victory.

Probably not helped by the fact that I took one look at the Ability table and was knocked flat by the sheer weight of vapidity.

Yeah, this is more or less my reaction too. People seem to be excited about the new rules, and I'm glad to see it. Personally, it just leaves me going, "Man. This worked so much better when you just gave us actual options and wargear costs."

It's hard to get excited about the crucible character rules if you ever played with access to the 3rd edition dark eldar armory. Or the 5th edition wargear options for that matter.

Even the traits/relics from 8th and 9th edition tended to give drukhari characters some flavorful abilities with a different playstyle. Archons with ignore line of sight pistols. Succubae that could deal mortal wounds when they crit on saves like Altair doing counter-attacks in Assassin's Creed.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

In one sense you're right but only because GW have decided that if you want even a sniff of character-customisation then you have to sacrifice literally everything else.

For example, even the 'Archon' version of the character isn't actually an Archon for the purposes of any rules. So if I'm trying to make an Archon to lead a Kabalite Cartel (i.e. the only detachment I actually like), then he can't actually use the core stratagem because he's an "Archtormemtor" not an "Archon".

Likewise, I can make a winged ""Haemonculus"" but I can't e.g. use Postmortality to revive him because he's not actually a Haemonculus.

(I'd mention enhancements but they're not permitted anyway, because heaven forbid we have too much customisation.)

I guess what I'm saying is that the ability to finally have a winged/Jetbike HQ feels like a rather hollow victory.

Probably not helped by the fact that I took one look at the Ability table and was knocked flat by the sheer weight of vapidity.

Yeah, this is more or less my reaction too. People seem to be excited about the new rules, and I'm glad to see it. Personally, it just leaves me going, "Man. This worked so much better when you just gave us actual options and wargear costs."

It's hard to get excited about the crucible character rules if you ever played with access to the 3rd edition dark eldar armory. Or the 5th edition wargear options for that matter.

Even the traits/relics from 8th and 9th edition tended to give drukhari characters some flavorful abilities with a different playstyle. Archons with ignore line of sight pistols. Succubae that could deal mortal wounds when they crit on saves like Altair doing counter-attacks in Assassin's Creed.

Agreed.

On the balance front, one of the things that makes me scratch my head is that weapons are completely free. So a basic Pew-Pew Pistol costs exactly the same as an Oblivion Death Laser.

Seems like it could have been an obvious way to add balance and also make it not a total waste for people to take options that aren't just the most powerful gun and melee weapon on offer.

On the balance front, one of the things that makes me scratch my head is that weapons are completely free. So a basic Pew-Pew Pistol costs exactly the same as an Oblivion Death Laser.

Seems like it could have been an obvious way to add balance and also make it not a total waste for people to take options that aren't just the most powerful gun and melee weapon on offer.

Yeah. I miss costed wargear in general, but I at least kind of understand how the 10e pricing model helps make life easier for the designers. But these crucible characters are a limited number of datasheets with options that have huge disparities in their effectiveness. I know that they aren't really intended for cut-throat games where balance is *as* important, but it would be nice to feel like my choice to take the crummy normal gun instead the ultra death laser for fluff reasons was acknowledged in some way.

There is a *bit* of that with weapons after the first melee and ranged weapon costing extra points, so at least you don't feel compelled to stick double blast pistols on every character.

 vipoid wrote:


On the balance front, one of the things that makes me scratch my head is that weapons are completely free. So a basic Pew-Pew Pistol costs exactly the same as an Oblivion Death Laser.

Seems like it could have been an obvious way to add balance and also make it not a total waste for people to take options that aren't just the most powerful gun and melee weapon on offer.

I suspect the "cost" of the weapons are already built in - as you're allowed one "long gun" and up to two pistols - and additional weapons cost additional points. Plus at least one of your free two must be a fight phase weapons, at least the close combat weapon. For example, if you made the Ravenwing Chaplain, they get the bike weapons, and at least a Close Combat (though probably their Crozius) and to get the Absolver pistol is another 5 at least how I read the leaks.

And I've thought about it more over lunch. I think - at least as far as Space Marines I don't know about the other factions because not all of them were in the leak I found - we were expecting too much from the system. Its not really good at... well its not really good, but it was never going to make Master of Sanctity Jorge from the Imperial Fists. With relatively minor tweaking, Its much better at filling in the "holes" for the missing archetype/armor combinations. The Biker not-captains. The Terminator Judiciar or Apothecary. For the people who have seen the Eldar sheets - can one make Karandas?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
"Man. This worked so much better when you just gave us actual options and wargear costs."

To me it does look more like the 2nd and 3rd ed style character customization than DIY Epic Hero. They've updated it for the Power Level using Points system and added a more "types" of options because all characters have more types of options, but if feels like it. And it gives us a look into their creation process. We now have a pretty good idea of what they think adds value and what doesn't. They appear to think the swap from one armor type to another armor type is a lateral move OR of so little value on too few models as to be not worth points. I'm not sure I 100% agree, but I don't think they're that far off. If I played Blood Angels I'd love to give a Chaplain or Judiciar Hero of the Golden Host to get a Chaplain/Priest that isn't a Death Company nursemaid. Heck I'd even add a caveat that the Champion of the Golden Host makes the Chaplain not count as a Chaplain when it comes to Death Company.