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.

Yeah, especially since the metal ones were so rare even when they came out.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Wait…where the flip is Jurgen’s Lasgun???

Glorious models - Jurgan does love his melta IIRC

Crossed fingers for Amberely or some of the 597th Valhallan Regiment

He’s always got his Lasgun with him. Especially when carrying the Meltagun. There are several book moments where it takes him a second or so to bring the Melta to bear as he stows his Lasgun in such a manner where he can still grab it quickly.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
There's definitely a right level for how detailed your weapons should be.

I'm very much in favour of things like powerswords, axes, and whatever else all just rolled into "powerweapon". There's just not enough design space to usefully separate them and it allows players more freedom in modelling what they like the look of.

But then something like a powerfist or thunderhammer should be a different weapon, as a "heavy power weapon" perhaps.

Where the problem really comes is you need to do this consistently. Combiweapons are the big boogiman in 10th and it's easy to see why. Everywhere else a plasmagun is different to a meltagun, except combis? But even then, where characters have combiweapons they do have weapon specific rules. It ends up making the combiweapons feel weird and arbitrary.

The ironic thing is when everything has bespoke rules, you're a lot more constrained in how you build your models than when they have more generic profiles. If you want your vets to have a cool mix of individual weapons, you will get that out of "Vanguard Weapons" before anything else. The flip side is that it makes those weapons feel less different on the table, but as someone whose faction consists of often rolling every attack individually for my Kill Teams, I'll say that these differences aren't something that ever feels good on the table. "I shouldn't have taken variety" is my most learned lesson from a decade of Deathwatch.

The argument I often see is something akin to "I want my choices to matter", which is grand, except you chose "wrong" 3 years ago when you built the cool powersword and now your choice mattering isn't so cool anymore.

It really does constrain modelling choice as 90% of what people model is the 'best' one. Then the other 10% is bemoaning the fact they built the 'wrong' ones. I don't see any value added, only taken!

Choices matter when they're really distinctly different. Powersword vs powerfist matters because they're really quite different. But powersword vs poweraxe really just shouldn't.

The inability of GW to sculpt hair anymore has not been kind to Cain's face...

I feel it was better in 2nd Ed. And I don’t think I’m just being Old Man Shouts At Clouds.

Let’s consider Power Sword vs Power Axe.

The Power Sword added some muscle (though with a flat profile, added more muscle to some over others), and offered a damned handy Parry, which could be the difference between winning and losing a punch up.

The Power Axe didn’t have the Parry, but you could wield it one handed, or two handed, on a round to round basis. Two Handed hit harder, but of course cost you a bonus attack as you couldn’t wield another melee or pistol alongside it.

Your Powerfist was just straight hitty, but cost more points.

I think only Chaos Terminators had access to Power Mauls, and I can’t remember their stats off the top of my head.

Not sure how to replicate such things in the modern game though. Which isn’t as detailed as 2nd Ed, and for entirely fair reasons.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I think only Chaos Terminators had access to Power Mauls, and I can’t remember their stats off the top of my head.

Sisters has them as well, my first 40k model purchase! And they were straight-up inferior to power swords, having identical stats but lacking parry. Thus they were worth one point less.

 The Phazer wrote:

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.

Don't forget Votaan. Everyone else gets a power sword and power fist. They get "generic weapon", despite having THREE options on the sprues.

*Deathwatch flashbacks intensify*

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I feel it was better in 2nd Ed. And I don’t think I’m just being Old Man Shouts At Clouds.

Let’s consider Power Sword vs Power Axe.

The Power Sword added some muscle (though with a flat profile, added more muscle to some over others), and offered a damned handy Parry, which could be the difference between winning and losing a punch up.

The Power Axe didn’t have the Parry, but you could wield it one handed, or two handed, on a round to round basis. Two Handed hit harder, but of course cost you a bonus attack as you couldn’t wield another melee or pistol alongside it.

Your Powerfist was just straight hitty, but cost more points.

I think only Chaos Terminators had access to Power Mauls, and I can’t remember their stats off the top of my head.

Not sure how to replicate such things in the modern game though. Which isn’t as detailed as 2nd Ed, and for entirely fair reasons.

Didn't Arbites have Power Maul access in the Codex Army Lists? I know they had RT models with post pistols & power mauls.

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.

Yeah.
At the danger of just full white knighting, I've moved from thinking this would be crazy in 8th or something to thinking I'd never want to go back in 10th.
I don't get any RP about having to slow roll everyone's attacks because they are different. And I don't really why the list tailoring of "well swords would be better here, but axes would be better there, and idk mauls are the best in 10% of circumstances" is worth it.
If GW can't be bothered to write different datasheets (and this might undermine the rule of 3, although you could solve that with keywords), then different points costs for monsters/tanks who clearly take on different roles with different main guns make sense.
But we are moving away from pretending 5-10 points means anything. You aren't losing many games because one squad of Boyz didn't have a rokkit launcha.

 KidCthulhu wrote:
Didn't Arbites have Power Maul access in the Codex Army Lists?

Yes - power sword or power maul & suppression shield. Marines & Imperial Agents could also take them. Maul was S5, D1, -3, 2D6+5AP. Sword was the same but with parry.

Tyel wrote:

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.

Yeah.
At the danger of just full white knighting, I've moved from thinking this would be crazy in 8th or something to thinking I'd never want to go back in 10th.
I don't get any RP about having to slow roll everyone's attacks because they are different. And I don't really why the list tailoring of "well swords would be better here, but axes would be better there, and idk mauls are the best in 10% of circumstances" is worth it.
If GW can't be bothered to write different datasheets (and this might undermine the rule of 3, although you could solve that with keywords), then different points costs for monsters/tanks who clearly take on different roles with different main guns make sense.
But we are moving away from pretending 5-10 points means anything. You aren't losing many games because one squad of Boyz didn't have a rokkit launcha.

I generally agree with this. Where it bothers the heck out of me is stuff like Termagants, where every unit of 10 can have three different special weapons, of which I have zero because I built them prior to 10th and Gaunts having special weapons hadn't been a thing since weapon-beast mutants in 3rd Ed. Or Tyranid Warriors going from one heavy weapon per brood, to one heavy weapon per 3 models, to now two heavy weapons out of every three models and there is no reason not to take them. Repeat this sort of stuff enough times across an entire army and the result is a tangible difference in firepower, but with no representation in the points system.

I think there has to be a middle ground between accounting for sergeant handgun variants and only assigning points to tank guns. Special/heavy weapons are the sort of case where targeting 5pt or 10pt increments keeps things simple while still accounting for wargear variation.

 catbarf wrote:
Or Tyranid Warriors going from one heavy weapon per brood, to one heavy weapon per 3 models, to now two heavy weapons out of every three models and there is no reason not to take them.

Cynically, this is probably an upside from GW's perspective. Now you got to buy some more Termagants to slot the special weapons into your broods, otherwise you're leaving free power on the table.

Same reason why Raveners and Stealth Suits now have minimal legal unit sizes that are larger than the number of models you'd have with the old box. It makes it more inconvenient to just keep using what you already have, since you doing so makes GW no additional money.

Personally I side with things being cooler having special weapons over not taking them being an advantage, but it definitely has its irritations. I just find them less irritating than when they adjust the special weapon costs and suddenly I can't field the unit because my army is 2007 points.

Nice to see the Knights covered, but they still haven't provided datasheets for the models one can use with the Questoris Forgepact and Iconoclaust Fiefdom detachments. Its only right given that the Aeldari Codex, for example, includes datasheets for Drukhari models for use in Ynnari detachments. They can easily resolve this by including them in the download faction packs on Warcom.

 LunarSol wrote:
Personally I side with things being cooler having special weapons over not taking them being an advantage, but it definitely has its irritations. I just find them less irritating than when they adjust the special weapon costs and suddenly I can't field the unit because my army is 2007 points.

Well, that happens anyway as it stands, no? You're still paying for those special weapons now, you just no longer have the option not to. Your army is 2007 points regardless.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
Personally I side with things being cooler having special weapons over not taking them being an advantage, but it definitely has its irritations. I just find them less irritating than when they adjust the special weapon costs and suddenly I can't field the unit because my army is 2007 points.

Well, that happens anyway as it stands, no? You're still paying for those special weapons now, you just no longer have the option not to. Your army is 2007 points regardless.

Well, it's not because points are that granular anymore. We're not trying to figure out the value of the body and each piece of equipment; we're costing for the whole unit, its special rules and yes, probably including the cost of a special weapon in the mix. I don't think we're paying for pistols though. I can return them if I want, but I don't think GW thought they were worth anything to begin with. I think Slipspace's comment of "has model, must have rules" definitely defines a lot of the obvious non options.

As for losing the option not to take the special weapons that probably do cost something, I think it mostly comes down to comparative pricing. When no one has the option strip out their special weapons to buy more units, it's not an advantage I need to keep up with the Jones. I'd rather see the stuff in the game than not. It's where all the character of the armies really lies and makes armies more interesting, IMO. I'd definitely like to see the options for those weapons better differentiated, but I really don't feel the need to have the option of nothing for min/max purposes.

Every random squad being full of rare weaponry, and every vehicle being festooned in additional weapons goes entirely AGAINST the character of most armies though...

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Every random squad being full of rare weaponry, and every vehicle being festooned in additional weapons goes entirely AGAINST the character of most armies though...

Eh, the weaponry being rare kind of went out the window when entire squads like Hellblasters became a thing. All this stuff being impossibly rare, only given to the most elite and exceptional of men who also die by the millions each day for tens of thousands of years as entire worlds are consumed has never passed much logistical scrutiny either.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Every random squad being full of rare weaponry, and every vehicle being festooned in additional weapons goes entirely AGAINST the character of most armies though...

This in a game where the most played faction with the most subfactions is arguably the smallest faction in the entire game. There are fewer Ultramarines than in one Genestealer Cult uprising. Yet I'd wager there are more Ultramarine armies than Genestealer Cults in the real world. With a good many being larger (numerically speaking) collections too.

Rarity is a bit out the window in wargames.

It’s all relative.

The Lasgun is favoured because whilst a technological marvel by our standards, its rugged, reliable, and you really only need the wielder to understand which end you point at the foe.

Plasmaguns? Volatile fuel, complex mechanisms needing careful maintenance, more complex supply chains.

A Forgeworld might churn out a billion Lasguns a day, and only five hundred Plasmaguns. So whilst still plentiful at the end of the day? Plasmaguns are still comparatively rare.

Add back in the logistical side of things? And they’re less commonplace due to specialised training and needing more specific fuel and that.

 KidCthulhu wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I feel it was better in 2nd Ed. And I don’t think I’m just being Old Man Shouts At Clouds.

Let’s consider Power Sword vs Power Axe.

The Power Sword added some muscle (though with a flat profile, added more muscle to some over others), and offered a damned handy Parry, which could be the difference between winning and losing a punch up.

The Power Axe didn’t have the Parry, but you could wield it one handed, or two handed, on a round to round basis. Two Handed hit harder, but of course cost you a bonus attack as you couldn’t wield another melee or pistol alongside it.

Your Powerfist was just straight hitty, but cost more points.

I think only Chaos Terminators had access to Power Mauls, and I can’t remember their stats off the top of my head.

Not sure how to replicate such things in the modern game though. Which isn’t as detailed as 2nd Ed, and for entirely fair reasons.

Didn't Arbites have Power Maul access in the Codex Army Lists? I know they had RT models with post pistols & power mauls.

To be overly finicky about this, just about everyone had access to power mauls. Chaos Terminators had the pretty much unique power mace which was more or less exactly the same but D3 damage. Most basic weapons including power fists were only 1 damage back then, so it was a big deal.

 LunarSol wrote:
As for losing the option not to take the special weapons that probably do cost something, I think it mostly comes down to comparative pricing. When no one has the option strip out their special weapons to buy more units, it's not an advantage I need to keep up with the Jones. I'd rather see the stuff in the game than not. It's where all the character of the armies really lies and makes armies more interesting, IMO. I'd definitely like to see the options for those weapons better differentiated, but I really don't feel the need to have the option of nothing for min/max purposes.

Fine, but I absolutely like to have the option of nothing. Setting aside the tactical concerns (what if I want a cheap lineholder rather than an expensive workhorse - not because the workhorse sucks, but because it's what my strategy actually needs?), it can often make for a cleaner look. I am not a Guard player, but if I was I'd build my Rogal Dorn with lanterns since I think they look much better than the nipple meltaguns, just to use an obvious example. Or if I am playing a shoddy conscript army maybe I want to have poor haggard lasgun squads instead of having them decked out to the teeth with fancy expensive guns, while at the same time also caring enough about the game itself to not want to sandbag myself on purpose purely to play for (a fairly lore-supported, I'll add) theme.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Wait…where the flip is Jurgen’s Lasgun???

Glorious models - Jurgan does love his melta IIRC

Crossed fingers for Amberely or some of the 597th Valhallan Regiment

He’s always got his Lasgun with him. Especially when carrying the Meltagun. There are several book moments where it takes him a second or so to bring the Melta to bear as he stows his Lasgun in such a manner where he can still grab it quickly.

Fair point - i thought it was just as odd they talk about Jurgan being worried - he is usually super calm

SamusDrake wrote:
Nice to see the Knights covered, but they still haven't provided datasheets for the models one can use with the Questoris Forgepact and Iconoclaust Fiefdom detachments. Its only right given that the Aeldari Codex, for example, includes datasheets for Drukhari models for use in Ynnari detachments. They can easily resolve this by including them in the download faction packs on Warcom.

But then it would mean one less codex bought. Let's be hopeful it's not another CSM 9th edition mess.
This reminds me: I don't have the codex, did it include datasheets for Plagur Marines and Rubrics?

Don’t forget the power lance as well, that did something special that I can’t quite remember. +2 S when charging or something?

Or was that from a later edition?

I think the power lance was 4th or 5th? It was one of the weird weapons that was in the core rulebook but only existed on 2 or 3 models across the whole game.

I'm an old veteran. I remember when there was "power weapon" and power fist. That was it. "Power Weapon" could be anything. Sword, bat, switchblade. They all did the same thing. The 5th edition came along and split power weapons into something like 6 varieties.

Yeah, I grumbled about that change, but got used to it. When they simplified things back a bit, I was cool with it. But when they went WAY too far and made several units with "generic Sergeant CCW upgrade" it was a bit too far.

It's the classic GW approach to things - see a problem; overcompensate on a solution. Sometimes they even double down and do two or three things that, each alone would have bee fine, but all together just create their own problem all over again