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.

That's likely to get min maxed real quick. Having groupings that encourage different play styles is a lot more likely to create options as long as you don't GIVE GLADIUS EVERY ABILITY YOU COULD WANT.

Honestly they just don't blend well with the games "flow".

There's FAR too many of them to memorise and the information isn't on model unit cards - the place you'd look when controlling a model and considering the options you've got with them.

It's a whole separate chart. So you've got to check the chart, then the models then the game state and so on .


For me I always found that they were harder to learn; harder to use and 100% you end up just using the two or three you've memorised every time

 Overread wrote:
Honestly they just don't blend well with the games "flow".

There's FAR too many of them to memorise and the information isn't on model unit cards - the place you'd look when controlling a model and considering the options you've got with them.

It's a whole separate chart. So you've got to check the chart, then the models then the game state and so on .


For me I always found that they were harder to learn; harder to use and 100% you end up just using the two or three you've memorised every time

In 9th there were a LOT of strategems that should have been part of the rules for specific models for sure.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I don't really like his evil grin, I don't like my Chaos to be that comicbook villainlike.
Hence it would be nice to see him treat a Primaris Lieutenant.
The rest is quite nice.

Agreed

It removes all the balefulness of chaos and turns them into sunday morning cartoon vilains. Thanksfully, a head swap is pretty easy to do (or even adding some bitz to his face to hide that smile)

Yep. Honestly I feel like someone in GW management is on a die-hard battle to make unit profiles as stripped down and simple as possible and is fighting someone else who is trying to retain what we had before.

The result is simpler and simpler unit profiles (eg look how close combat is almost down to a single stat profile in AoS and 40K with no weapon variability); but then layers of additional rules like Strategims on top which kind of restore what was had before but in a super messy way.


The result is yes that unit profile itself is simpler. But actually running the game and model is harder and more complicated.

 Overread wrote:
Yep. Honestly I feel like someone in GW management is on a die-hard battle to make unit profiles as stripped down and simple as possible and is fighting someone else who is trying to retain what we had before.

The result is simpler and simpler unit profiles (eg look how close combat is almost down to a single stat profile in AoS and 40K with no weapon variability); but then layers of additional rules like Strategims on top which kind of restore what was had before but in a super messy way.


The result is yes that unit profile itself is simpler. But actually running the game and model is harder and more complicated.

And every unit has to have a special bespoke rule. It’s not enough to have a statline and gear, you need that little bit extra, just to keep things interesting..

 Nevelon wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Yep. Honestly I feel like someone in GW management is on a die-hard battle to make unit profiles as stripped down and simple as possible and is fighting someone else who is trying to retain what we had before.

The result is simpler and simpler unit profiles (eg look how close combat is almost down to a single stat profile in AoS and 40K with no weapon variability); but then layers of additional rules like Strategims on top which kind of restore what was had before but in a super messy way.


The result is yes that unit profile itself is simpler. But actually running the game and model is harder and more complicated.

And every unit has to have a special bespoke rule. It’s not enough to have a statline and gear, you need that little bit extra, just to keep things interesting..

Oh yes even if some of those special rules are something daft like "+1 armour save" and nothing in game influences that ability at all. So it will never change and could have just been a +1 on the armour save rule itself.

And the annoyance of having the same ability have different names on different units to be fluffy; but again only makes it more confusing cause it means having to learn even more terms

Or the daft situation we have now where psy weapons do nothing save mean that a handful of models get a better than normal save against them. Ergo making them a purely negative modifier on your weapons.

Yeah, a S6 AP-2 D2 Force Weapon is so much worse than the normal S5 AP-2 D1 Power Weapon because of the psychic tag! /s

 JNAProductions wrote:
Yeah, a S6 AP-2 D2 Force Weapon is so much worse than the normal S5 AP-2 D1 Power Weapon because of the psychic tag! /s

This is one of those funny psychological things about rules writing. People always clamor for things to be on the statline but don't actually have much appreciation for statline differences. Honestly, if Force Weapons were just Power Weapons with a second profile that was +1 S/D with the psychic and hazardous keyword, people would respond a lot better to it despite being significantly worse than it is now.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Honestly they just don't blend well with the games "flow".

There's FAR too many of them to memorise and the information isn't on model unit cards - the place you'd look when controlling a model and considering the options you've got with them.

It's a whole separate chart. So you've got to check the chart, then the models then the game state and so on .


For me I always found that they were harder to learn; harder to use and 100% you end up just using the two or three you've memorised every time

In 9th there were a LOT of strategems that should have been part of the rules for specific models for sure.

I never understood why they didn’t just let you have model/unit special abilities that used command points to activate. That way you still get the tactical limitation of only so many command points, but don’t have to memorise an entire deck of cards and sit doing mental gymnastics to figure out which one might benefit this unique situation in front of you.

 Jadenim wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Honestly they just don't blend well with the games "flow".

There's FAR too many of them to memorise and the information isn't on model unit cards - the place you'd look when controlling a model and considering the options you've got with them.

It's a whole separate chart. So you've got to check the chart, then the models then the game state and so on .


For me I always found that they were harder to learn; harder to use and 100% you end up just using the two or three you've memorised every time

In 9th there were a LOT of strategems that should have been part of the rules for specific models for sure.

I never understood why they didn’t just let you have model/unit special abilities that used command points to activate. That way you still get the tactical limitation of only so many command points, but don’t have to memorise an entire deck of cards and sit doing mental gymnastics to figure out which one might benefit this unique situation in front of you.

So, you want every army to be Dark Eldar?