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.

I feel like the "point granulation sweet spot" deserves it's own discussion. For me though, if they brought back per-model cost with unit size min-max, AND did unit upgrade points on anything over 25 points in value, that would be fine.

 cuda1179 wrote:
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.

I'm an older veteran, and remember when there were a bunch of different weapons that were all rolled into generic 'power weapon' or 'close combat weapon' statlines, and it was almost universally hated.


That said, the original weapon stats were not perfect. Doc's summary up the thread a ways missed the fact that practically nobody actually used power axes in 2nd edition, because having the parry from the sword was objectively better than being able to use the axe two-handed on those rare occasions where the extra point of strength was more useful than the extra melee attack.

Similarly, the Chaos Codex giving CSMs the option to take regular swords for 1 point each meant there was no point paying the extra point for Chainswords, as in a Marine's hands they were identical.


I always liked the granularity of 2nd ed's weapons, but they definitely needed some tweaking.

I can't help but feel that there's something very amiss when a game that considers both a centuries-old genetically augmented demigod and a normal dude who's survived a few years of action to be the same WS3+, but it really really matters whether the lump of metal on the end of their stick is sharp or blunt.

I think weapon differentiation is best kept for significant technical differences in capability, like power weapons vs power fists vs normal close combat weapons. Otherwise it puts too much focus on the weapon rather than the guy carrying it, creates unnecessary bookkeeping fuss, and makes for feels-bad moments when you armed your dude with the 'wrong' weapon.

Overread wrote: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.

But D10s don't stack nearly as well.

 cuda1179 wrote:
I feel like the "point granulation sweet spot" deserves it's own discussion. For me though, if they brought back per-model cost with unit size min-max, AND did unit upgrade points on anything over 25 points in value, that would be fine.

Pretty much the same - I thought free upgrades would be a much bigger problem then it turned out to be, most small things though can be baked into the cost of the unit. The perfect-enough system for now would be:
* Points per model NOT per 5 or 10 (take any size squad between min and max)
* Points for highest performance wargear (only when it is noticeably an improvement)
* Getting rid of most of the noise on datasheets around duplicates of wargear (people are buying duplicates of boxsets, just let them play with their models)

 insaniak wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
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.

I'm an older veteran, and remember when there were a bunch of different weapons that were all rolled into generic 'power weapon' or 'close combat weapon' statlines, and it was almost universally hated.


That said, the original weapon stats were not perfect. Doc's summary up the thread a ways missed the fact that practically nobody actually used power axes in 2nd edition, because having the parry from the sword was objectively better than being able to use the axe two-handed on those rare occasions where the extra point of strength was more useful than the extra melee attack.

Similarly, the Chaos Codex giving CSMs the option to take regular swords for 1 point each meant there was no point paying the extra point for Chainswords, as in a Marine's hands they were identical.


I always liked the granularity of 2nd ed's weapons, but they definitely needed some tweaking.

The power axe going up to S6 pushed it into the next armour pen tier, making it an extra D12 rather than D6 to armour pen, which is a pretty big thing… for close combat a sword is way better, but when smashing into a vehicle a power axe is handy.

 parakuribo wrote:

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?

I'd assume they would have been in the already established Deathguard and Thousand Sons codices, as that would have been two less codices bought.

SamusDrake wrote:


I'd assume they would have been in the already established Deathguard and Thousand Sons codices, as that would have been two less codices bought.

Thanks!

Not as bad as I thought. Still very messed up how each god required more points per unit to follow(making TS, DG and WE better looking options), especially with Slaanesh amd EC getting the very short end late 9th.

I just dislike being forced to have my devastator or elite like units having to take 4 different weapon profiles because thats what they come in the pack.

I also dislike weapon homogeneization outside certain cases (I can accept power weapons being power weapons with an exception for heavy power weapons, ala power first/thunder hammers, and lighting claws because lighting claws are awesome).

If I want a devastator unit with 4 heavy bolters i want my 4 heavy bolters, not be forced to take 1 of each weapon.

They did that in AoS with the kharadron thunderers because before all the squad could have the special weapon, and one option was just OP and better than all the others, so the evolution in the rules for that kit did go:
- Can take 4 copies of any of the 4 weapon options -> Each one can take 1 different weapon because the box comes with 1 of each weapon -> All weapons have the same rules because rolling 4 weapon profiles its stupid but the weapons look extremely different and now you lose the feeling of having an anti horde unit or an anti heavy monster unit.

If I pick miniguns i want my guys to shoot tons of dice, and if I pick lasers i want to have big damage hits. Weapons are not only rules: Rules are also an aesthetic and a feeling on the table. If they fail to represent that, thats a failure in design, just as if my super ultra resilient plague marine is made of paper by rules and dies super easy or its super fast even when he looks like he should be slow and tought.

 Galas wrote:

I also dislike weapon homogeneization outside certain cases (I can accept power weapons being power weapons with an exception for heavy power weapons, ala power first/thunder hammers, and lighting claws because lighting claws are awesome).

I could accept lightning claws as power weapons if there was a dual wield profile for power weapons in general that mostly applied to claws.

Fundamentally the problem isn't if we have unique profiles for each power weapon or a generic profile for most with a few exceptions or no exceptions.

The problem is shifting goalposts. GW giving us unique profiles; then taking them away; then going full generic; then bringing back unique profiles; or doing it for some units and not others and swapping it around.

Basically creating a situation of constant change is part of the issue. Because each time we get into one way of approach we grumble about the ups and the downs; settle into the new normal and then GW goes and changes it all again

https://www.warhammer-community.com/en-gb/articles/fvbmcs1u/new40k-rules-zoom-across-the-battlefield-in-the-updated-land-speeder/

Including how fly works in 11th

Fly functions!

 LunarSol wrote:
Fly functions!

And pretty simple. No measuring diagonals or up/down. Just shave 2” off your speed and go. But if you don’t need to hop over stuff? Just move what you’ve got. At pretty much anytime you need to move.

Like it a lot.

I honestly preferred the fly measuring over stuff in 3d space, it felt more realistic to me.
I just hated it in combination with infantry just walking through walls without penalty. Which is a mechanic I hate with a burning, burning passion for a multitude of reasons.

[old]

Time was, Lightning Claws had to be wielded as a pair, and only on Terminator armour. Basically their mass and nature required highly specialised training.

[/old]

That is VERY old. I remember old metal lightning-claws-and-power-armour models older than half the playerbase.

From the LS datasheet:

The MM is not heavy, just hitting on a 3+ without fussing.
HF lost ignores cover, still has torrent, no other changes.
Onslaught looks the same as before.
The missiles are only AV, but better then kracks.

Range brackets it wants to be at are all over the place, but we knew that.

Not a fan of d6 shoot and scoot. But could be useful.

 Nevelon wrote:
From the LS datasheet:

The MM is not heavy, just hitting on a 3+ without fussing.
HF lost ignores cover, still has torrent, no other changes.
Onslaught looks the same as before.
The missiles are only AV, but better then kracks.

Range brackets it wants to be at are all over the place, but we knew that.

Not a fan of d6 shoot and scoot. But could be useful.

Most vehicle MM weren't Heavy, IIRC. Torrent is effectively ignores cover now since it doesn't roll to hit. There may be edge cases where units get other abilities when receiving the benefit of cover that now apply when shot by flamers, but those are pretty niche.

GW has a weird obsession with putting really confused loadouts on units. The Land Speeder is no exception, it seems. It's got a gun for every eventuality. I'm sure GW thinks that makes it super useful, as opposed to the reality of it just being sub-par at everything. Still, a MM and effectively a lascannon with a D6" move after shooting is OK anti-tank if its cheap.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
[old]

Time was, Lightning Claws had to be wielded as a pair, and only on Terminator armour. Basically their mass and nature required highly specialised training.

[/old]

Used to be that Thunder Hammers were so violent that only a Terminator could weird one without being knocked over by the recoil from an impact.
Now you have regular power armour bodies wielding giant two handed thunder hammers like it’s nothing.

 Nevelon wrote:
From the LS datasheet:
(...)
HF lost ignores cover, still has torrent, no other changes.

Makes sense, as cover is now -1 BS and flamer weapons don't have a BS stat.

Correct me if I am wrong, but, the points changes issue isn't really new...

The example they gave was essentially different loadouts on a Riptide. Which is nothing new to Imperial and Chaos Knight players. The codex is essentially 4 chassis with each weapon load out given a different name and point cost.

 Mr_Rose wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
[old]

Time was, Lightning Claws had to be wielded as a pair, and only on Terminator armour. Basically their mass and nature required highly specialised training.

[/old]

Used to be that Thunder Hammers were so violent that only a Terminator could weird one without being knocked over by the recoil from an impact.
Now you have regular power armour bodies wielding giant two handed thunder hammers like it’s nothing.

[old] And that Terminator needed specialist combat attachments on his feets.[/old]

 goffnob deffsmakka wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
From the LS datasheet:
(...)
HF lost ignores cover, still has torrent, no other changes.

Makes sense, as cover is now -1 BS and flamer weapons don't have a BS stat.

In the Q&A thing they mentioned that some weapons might have stats tweaked because of the change. Heavy Flamers obviously not one of them..

Valrak rumor: Doomrider returning. Sister of Battle getting a new Fast attack option.

Technically, flamers are exactly as powerful as in 10th: no hit rolls needed and the target's armour save stays the same.
It's every other weapon that now performs differently when shooting at units in cover. The loss of +1 save should actually mean that AP on weapons needs to drop to compensate. How that balances against the -1 to hit is probably different on a per-weapon basis.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Valrak rumor: Doomrider returning. Sister of Battle getting a new Fast attack option.

I'll believe doomrider when I see it, but it would be awesome

 cuda1179 wrote:
Valrak rumor: Doomrider returning. Sister of Battle getting a new Fast attack option.

Land Speeders, new Ork bikes. Feeling very Fast Attack slot around here in 11th so far.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Valrak rumor: Doomrider returning. Sister of Battle getting a new Fast attack option.

Anyone willing to take bets on Doomrider returning but Chaos Bikers staying the same?

Winged Warriors next?