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.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
They answered my Custodes question. Good to know that all the plastic from the new Custodes box will be used going forward. *Whew*

It still was not a comprehensive statement. If they're in legends they're still able to be used going forwards. However given legends will be in the app, if you're not attending events that solves it.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 ZergSmasher wrote:
So they're screwing us over on options with the units from the box set, like the Boyz in the box will have bog standard options but the actual kit will have special weapons. Good to know, but it still pisses me off royally. I was irritated about it with the Termagants in the last box too. Now, if said special weapons cost points, it won't sting nearly as bad since maybe you want to keep your Boyz cheap and cheerful, like if all you want is melee combat out of them.

I mean, it's been that way in literally every big edition box 40K has ever had, so...

It was less of an issue before 10th. When they dropped the wargear point costs and locked in squad size they dramatically reduced the value of bare bones starter box squads.

Things like ML/F chainsword sarge tactical squads might not have had as much punch on the table as a fully kitted squad, but they were cheep. So even if they were not optimal, they had a place.

And when costs were per model, instead of per box, it was easier to break up a box to make spares. You could poach spare bodies for other projects, and still field the squad, albiet understrength. But you were only paying points for what you were using. For marine players it was also very easy to pick up a tac/dev box for extra bodies to make use of all the spare weapons to splash around squads. Something a lot harder to do with all the bespoke primaris units, or for other armies not blessed with flexible kits.

With 10th’s philosophy on points and unit size there is basically no reason ever to field units undersized or without max wargear. So while the pattern is the same as prior boxes, the rules are not.

I will probably hold off on building some of the squads until I see what options are missing from the full codex rules. Or magnetize some to leave room to adapt. I’ve got a deep enough bitz box to work up options. And can start in on the HQs while I wait. Or clear out more of the backlog.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Also, while I firmly believe things like sponsons and Hunter Killer Missiles should have a cost since they're just add-ons with modest to big impact, the difference between a Las and Bolt pistol... That's not even a 1 point upgrade.
A Plasma pistol is probably worth 2 or 3 points... But not much.

Seems fine to me. I am old enough to remember WHFB players paying half a point for a shield. Some people have adamantly told me that if upgrades were at all pointed, they would never give their guardsmen any upgrades at all. I genuinely think that mindset became rooted because GW was awful at balancing wargear costs (back then they didn't do quarterly updates to fix stuff like they do now) and sometimes you'd arbitrarily pay the same points for a power fist on a sergeant or a chapter master which obviously are not equally useful.

But I am 100% sure a points cost exists for every weapon. Maybe some people would not pay half a point to upgrade their near-useless laspistol into a plasma pistol that has decent odds of blasting a chunk out of a 20pt Space Marine. I sure would, though, nor do I think you'd even have to go that far.

In aggregate, on an army list level, the tradeoff between an extra squad or giving your existing squads guns actually worth rolling for under chess clock conditions would be a real one.

ccs wrote:

 cerebaton wrote:
I don't know loads about UV printing but it seems like you end up with a very thin layer of ink over the plastic - it might be that you can paint straight over the pre-painted elements and an un-painted version isn't necessary.

You 100% can paint straight over it.
Or practically anything else....

One rattle can of your favorite primer will work just fine.

UV printing(unless GW have made some hitherto undreampt of breakthrough in the technology) is noticeably textured in a way you aren't getting rid of without blowing out other details, and unlike a speckly rattlecan job you won't be able to strip this stuff off easily to start again. So yeah you can paint over it, just don't use any contrast type paints or washes or drybrushing - I hope you like layering and blacklining.

As for the general argument about prepaints, I admit to simply not understanding the game-first mentality. Once you strip away the story and the hobbying aspects, it never seemed to me that Warhammer games were good enough on their own merits as a pure 1v1 competitive experience to justify the devotion some people have to it. But I do think the gatekeeping argument is valid here; Warhammer is a particular experience. A given person may care more or less about this or that aspect of the experience, may even actively dislike one of them, but without the totality of them what remains is diminished. Maybe a person doesn't care to paint their own army, but would they really enjoy a world where every single instance of a given army looks identical? All Ork Boyz the same 10 poses with the same 10 paintjobs repeated over and over again, in every Ork army you ever play against. I think maybe some people really do despise painting so much and are so hyperfocused - for those reasons I cannot discern - on the actual tabletop gameplay in complete isolation that they'd be happy with that, but I'd wager - bloody nora I'd hope - that most people would in the end think prepaints to be a devil's bargain.

They already confirmed that the new terrain will be sold painted and unpainted. You can now stop derailing this new thread to question people's dedication to the hobby, just like the mods asked.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nevelon wrote:
It was less of an issue before 10th.

Not really. Both the AOBR nobz and boyz (5th starter) are illegal to field today and have been that way since at least 9th. Nobz can no longer have slugga/choppa as wargear, boyz were missing a nob.
There literally never was a reason to field them as-is, you needed to add a multi-part box to both to make them useful.

So, with a surprisingly stingy preorder week ahead of us, what are the odds that we will see Armageddon announced for preorder next sunday?

I just want it over with already, so other game systems will get their due attention again

 tauist wrote:
So, with a surprisingly stingy preorder week ahead of us, what are the odds that we will see Armageddon announced for preorder next sunday?

I just want it over with already, so other game systems will get their due attention again

Week off I think for a preorder date in June. Still got Knights, Votann, Thousand Sons, Emperor's Children, Genestealer Cult, Eldar/Dark Eldar and Necron faction focuses to do too which seems like at least two weeks.

You've still got a Middle-Earth release to go from the last preview to fill out another week.

 tauist wrote:
I just want it over with already, so other game systems will get their due attention again

I'll agree with this - I get that #new40k should be the main focus in the run-up to the release of Armageddon, but completely shutting down previews/reveals of new stuff for any other game for what feels like since Adepticon is getting irksome.

At the very least they could've thrown out a Blood Bowl Star Player, or a Necromunda Hanger-On - something that isn't competing with 40k, but would keep the news cycle ticking over...

 Dysartes wrote:

 tauist wrote:
I just want it over with already, so other game systems will get their due attention again

I'll agree with this - I get that #new40k should be the main focus in the run-up to the release of Armageddon, but completely shutting down previews/reveals of new stuff for any other game for what feels like since Adepticon is getting irksome.

At the very least they could've thrown out a Blood Bowl Star Player, or a Necromunda Hanger-On - something that isn't competing with 40k, but would keep the news cycle ticking over...

To be fair, then it was sigmars release window the 40k content fell off a cliff, it's just how they work.

Lets not forget, in the background GW's manufacture and production setup is going nuts making loads of starter sets and so forth. A new 40K edition release is probably the single biggest thing GW does. Even Winter boxed sets likely don't get close to it because alongside all the production there's videos; media; 3rd parties and a bunch of other things that all need to be lined up for the launch as well.

Not to mention the boxed sets are complex things - terrain, modes, cardstock, books and so forth.

Had a quick thought on "why did people give Guard sergeants plasma pistols back when they cost points" thing and I think it's worth remembering it wasn't always the case that you could lasgun a battle tank to death - huge volumes of weak shots being basically *always* more effective than fewer powerful shots is really an 8th edition onwards thing. Apologies if I'm being obvious there.

Always worth it as a reminder. Spesh when a Plasma Pistol was probably, despite the risk, point for point the best pistol in the game.

Could vaporise pretty much any infantry model in a single shot. And had a not unreasonable chance of getting a penetrating hit on the rear armour of vehicles.

So in the hands of a Guard Sarge? There were plenty situations where it would pay for itself many times over, even from a single shot. And typically? With a regularity that comfortably outweighed the chance of blowing yourself up.

GW always had/has a problem with points because they often tried to levelise costs. IE a powersword is always 10pts regardless of if you're buying it for a scrub sergeant or a chaptermaster. But the reality is that, mechanically speaking, a WS4+ S3 A2 powersword is fundamentally a different weapon to a WS2+ S4 A6 powersword.

hopefully, if they go to add points, they'll approach it in a more appropriate way. I think having stats like weaponskill and attacks now explicitly just part of the weapon really help point writers in the right direction.

The points costs sort of represented the rarity of the weapon as much as anything, I think it's still okay to have efficient versus inefficient ways to spend your points. If you're giving a sarge a fancy sword but leaving your captain with harsh language something's gone a bit wrong.

I don't think that's really true
The lore used to say plasmaguns were so rare an entire regiment of Imperial Guard might only have a couple to go round. Yet the guns weren't extremely expensive in points.

But there's definitely a valid question in "how efficient should any given option be?". Is it okay to have 'trap choices'?
Personally I don't think there should be, any given loadout should be viable. Otherwise all you're doing is punishing narrative gamers which is imo the opposite of what you should be doing.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
GW always had/has a problem with points because they often tried to levelise costs. IE a powersword is always 10pts regardless of if you're buying it for a scrub sergeant or a chaptermaster. But the reality is that, mechanically speaking, a WS4+ S3 A2 powersword is fundamentally a different weapon to a WS2+ S4 A6 powersword.

The other problem is that GW never lets the game settle long enough. Adjusting points is always going to be a constant as you'll never hit "perfection", but you can get to a point where the gains and losses of the system are fairly flat and spread out. Where extremes have been steadily whittled out. GW never gets there; the system of new rules every 3 years actively prevents it.

One of the easiest solutions to the points problem is something GW refuses to do because of the counterpart to the "no model, no rules" policy, which is "has model, must have rules" policy. For something like a Guard sergeant the impact of a plasma pistol over a laspistol is very small, but it is measurable to the extent that it's obvious the plasma pistol is better. The best way to handle these situations where the increase in power is so small is probably to not have the option in the first place. You can easily rename the entry from laspistol to "Sergeant Sidearm" or similar, and choose whatever stats you want to represent a slightly updgraded weapon that allows you to model your guys as you want but doesn't get bogged down by how effecctive a 5-point models pistol is in a 2k game.

Slipspace wrote:
One of the easiest solutions to the points problem is something GW refuses to do because of the counterpart to the "no model, no rules" policy, which is "has model, must have rules" policy. For something like a Guard sergeant the impact of a plasma pistol over a laspistol is very small, but it is measurable to the extent that it's obvious the plasma pistol is better. The best way to handle these situations where the increase in power is so small is probably to not have the option in the first place. You can easily rename the entry from laspistol to "Sergeant Sidearm" or similar, and choose whatever stats you want to represent a slightly updgraded weapon that allows you to model your guys as you want but doesn't get bogged down by how effecctive a 5-point models pistol is in a 2k game.

I noticed some of this in things like the wardens of Ultramar. Where all of the exotic gear all just happens to have very similar stats. They probably should have differentiated it more for fluff reasons. But for game play, it’s nice that it’s all homogeneous. At the 40k scale, we don’t need that level of detail.

That's so dull, though. To "solve" a "problem" that in the case of a 10pt pistol amounts to less than 1% of somebody's 2000pt list. That isn't a problem and solving it by homogenizing everything is gross.

Gw has been doing that all over the place in AoS with close combat weapons. Tyranid Warriors also lost all their close combat weapons for a simple "close combat" profile.

So its happening already with close combat

The thing is when you take a unit that has 5 weapon choices and make them all the same stats wise the next time you come to build that unit as a model for a new sculpt you ask yourself "do we need 5 weapons in the kit if they can only use 1 on the model"

Another aspect is that people like taking the plasma gun and feel like its a plasma gun. They want it to backfire; to hit harder than the laspistol and so on. They want it to feel like it does something.



Now some of this I can personally accept in the realm of multi-weapon units steadily losing some options because there's now a half dozen units that replace those weapon choices. Eg Warriors and Carnifex used to be catch-all units for lots of different roles because that's all Tyranids had; today they've loads of specialists that fill that slot so the generic catch-all unit has less viability so its easier to take some choice (Sadly) away and slot them into a new role.

However when its just "spears and swords are the same" or "plasma and las are the same" I feel like you're actually sacrificing the flavour and flare of the game.

Slipspace wrote:
One of the easiest solutions to the points problem is something GW refuses to do because of the counterpart to the "no model, no rules" policy, which is "has model, must have rules" policy. For something like a Guard sergeant the impact of a plasma pistol over a laspistol is very small, but it is measurable to the extent that it's obvious the plasma pistol is better. The best way to handle these situations where the increase in power is so small is probably to not have the option in the first place. You can easily rename the entry from laspistol to "Sergeant Sidearm" or similar, and choose whatever stats you want to represent a slightly updgraded weapon that allows you to model your guys as you want but doesn't get bogged down by how effecctive a 5-point models pistol is in a 2k game.

GW did this with Chaos Terminators and people (rightly, IMO) hated it.

Honestly the easy approach would be to take the game from D6 to D10 which would increase the scope and range of results that weapons could have on a dice roll and thus let GW broaden the differences between weapons without it being all or nothing.

Also creates a nice excuse for GW to sell LOADS of new fresh dice to people.

There is a line somewhere. And where it is is subjective.

Should vanguard vets just get “vanguard weapons” despite having assorted gear from the armory that does vastly separate things?

Vs.

You used this magazine on your bolt riles, so they have separate rules from these other 2. This one genestealer with the weird face is an upgrade in the squad (that does almost nothing)

Depends on the squad for me.

For Intercessors? I think I prefer a single weapon with profile options for each round of shooting. Helps the unit feel elite without bogging it down with options.

For stuff like Vanguard? I want them to feel elite, and like each individual warrior is packing his specialist gear. Sure some weapon profiles will barely be different in the grand scheme of things. But let them have that rules detail. Let them be a tool box unit each player can somewhat tailor to best support their specific army.

 Nevelon wrote:
There is a line somewhere. And where it is is subjective.

Should vanguard vets just get “vanguard weapons” despite having assorted gear from the armory that does vastly separate things?

Vs.

You used this magazine on your bolt riles, so they have separate rules from these other 2. This one genestealer with the weird face is an upgrade in the squad (that does almost nothing)

In my view most of it should be just primary weapons. Grenades on a belt; scopes on a rifle; etc.. are tiny differences that switch about way too much and which are honestly near invisible at table playing distances. A plasma gun vs a lasgun though does stand out.


There's also a practical element to it. You can have 3 different leader models with 3 different pistols and it doesn't feel like a waste of a model to own. No one is going to have 9 of the same model with 3 different weapon options and then 3 different grenade shapes on their hip per weapon choice.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Depends on the squad for me.

For Intercessors? I think I prefer a single weapon with profile options for each round of shooting. Helps the unit feel elite without bogging it down with options.

For stuff like Vanguard? I want them to feel elite, and like each individual warrior is packing his specialist gear. Sure some weapon profiles will barely be different in the grand scheme of things. But let them have that rules detail. Let them be a tool box unit each player can somewhat tailor to best support their specific army.

I loved sternguard with special ammo. You could tailor what you needed for the target. But they were an elite special unit and that was their schtick. I d0n’t want that level of granular detail on my battle line troop models.

When I built my van vets, I first gave them the whole individual warrior hero gear setup. Axes, swords, mauls, lances. Whole kit and caboodle. Back when different shapes of power weapons were a thing. After they hit the table in their first game I knew I needed to change that. Sure, they looked cool, but mechanically they were a nightmare. Stripped it down to axes and swords, the key roles that needed doing.

I still feel it suits Marines, as they’re meant to be elite, even in their comparative lower ranks. So Bolt Rifles with different firing modes feels appropriate.

Stuff like Guard or Hybrids or Guardian Defenders? Less so.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I still feel it suits Marines, as they’re meant to be elite, even in their comparative lower ranks. So Bolt Rifles with different firing modes feels appropriate.

Stuff like Guard or Hybrids or Guardian Defenders? Less so.

That’s fair. As I said, it’s very subjective. We all have our spots where we draw that line.

For me, that level of modular detail should be in places like Kill Team, where the individual is more important.

It's also something that changes a lot between editions. Eg grenades sometimes are just decorative on the model; sometimes they are a specific upgrade choice; other times there's multiple different kinds.

So your onboarding point might well shape your view on what upgrade parts/upgrade should be.



For me I think that at the scale 40K is today with the number of models and so forth I'm happier with fewer upgrades; but that they should cost points. Having zero point upgrades doesn't make them a choice; it makes them the default because you've no reason to not take a +1 save and so forth if it costs you nothing to field.