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.

strepp wrote:
The article mentions "The Fallacy of Choice", and I think it's a point that has been overlooked in this thread.

PL restrict your choices by opportunity cost, in that if you choose upgrade X for a unit, it means you cannot have upgrade Y or Z.

Points further restricts your choices by not only presenting an opportunity cost, but whenever you take upgrade X for a unit, it means you cannot take an upgrade (or another unit) elsewhere.

While this seems like a good thing (more impact from choices), the meta strongly favored more units at the expense of gear. The options presented in the unit lists became irrelevant: don't upgrade your sergeant with a CC weapon, because it's better to spend that 10pts elsewhere - better yet, don't pay for a sergeant if you don't have to!

By removing that point cost, you are somewhat forced to take the upgrade for that sergeant, and make the choice between chainsword, power sword, or power fist. Some players will choose the "most expensive" upgrade to maximize the unit's value, but as we've seen, GW has made every attempt to distinguish weapons for different roles. If I had to guess, I would say the meta would initially lean this way and quickly move towards greater unit variety. This is then why I think PL are worth trying out: their use promotes variety over min-maxing, and rewards TAC lists.

Yes! This. Also, take notice that a lot of the naysaying and arguments against power levels are done so by making points comparisons. But the comparison can not be fairly made because these are two different systems working with two different sets of assumptions and working towards two different goals.The old system of points no longer applies in a system of power levels. Once you break free from the old assumptions - that the old points system ever actually worked, then you'll be able to see that power levels does work (or at worst, works just as well) but accomplishes something different. It encourages a variety of units with different uses instead of simply 'the Best' units (and here I've used the old language).

If i compere the upgrade options on my Necrons and my Tyranids. I would say it's a terrible idea.

I would assume that it's taken into account in the power level, the units that have less options are "cheaper" on power level. At least when looking at chaos list, you can quite clearly see that you have to pay for the upgrades even with power level. Good example are bikers, first 3 cost 5 power level, the next three cost 3 PL. You get all of the upgrades already for the first 3 bikers. Similar thing if you compare havocs with regular chaos marines, first 5 havocs 7 PL, next five 3. First 5 marines, 5 PL, next five 4 PL (you get additional heavy weapon for 10 marines) and then the next five marines 3 PL.
Of course I'm sure that just as with any points system, there are some undercosted and some overcosted units, but to say you'll get the upgrades for free with powerlevel, it isn't true.

GodDamUser wrote:
I think the big stickler is that people are thinking all the options are 'free'

That's because pl is so Ill defined the devs said its a median value but that's a worthless statement lacking all required context.

Not knowing what the devs think an average load out is we can't do anything other than see upgrades as free.

Pl should of had that median loadout listed so you know what that power level is actually worth.

hobojebus wrote:

GodDamUser wrote:
I think the big stickler is that people are thinking all the options are 'free'

That's because pl is so Ill defined the devs said its a median value but that's a worthless statement lacking all required context.

Not knowing what the devs think an average load out is we can't do anything other than see upgrades as free.

Pl should of had that median loadout listed so you know what that power level is actually worth.

It's hard to see the logic here. If 5 power level gives you 5 marines, with lascannon, plasmapistol and a power fist, then 5 power level is worth exactly that. Then you can compare that to something else that you get with 5 PL and see how it compares. Just like you compare units with points. Or you could as well say something like unit of reavers is worse than unit of skyweavers with similar points cost, one of them clearly gets stuff for free.

strepp wrote:
The article mentions "The Fallacy of Choice", and I think it's a point that has been overlooked in this thread.

PL restrict your choices by opportunity cost, in that if you choose upgrade X for a unit, it means you cannot have upgrade Y or Z.

Points further restricts your choices by not only presenting an opportunity cost, but whenever you take upgrade X for a unit, it means you cannot take an upgrade (or another unit) elsewhere.

While this seems like a good thing (more impact from choices), the meta strongly favored more units at the expense of gear. The options presented in the unit lists became irrelevant: don't upgrade your sergeant with a CC weapon, because it's better to spend that 10pts elsewhere - better yet, don't pay for a sergeant if you don't have to!

By removing that point cost, you are somewhat forced to take the upgrade for that sergeant, and make the choice between chainsword, power sword, or power fist. Some players will choose the "most expensive" upgrade to maximize the unit's value, but as we've seen, GW has made every attempt to distinguish weapons for different roles. If I had to guess, I would say the meta would initially lean this way and quickly move towards greater unit variety. This is then why I think PL are worth trying out: their use promotes variety over min-maxing, and rewards TAC lists.

That might be true if they had not then went on to say we should use PL as a way to sideboard. That removes all opportunity cost in list building because if you take flexible units (basically all imperial units) you have no opportunity cost as you can list tailor your upgrades to the best option for the list you are facing. There is no opportunity cost when I have a lascannon against the mech list, and a grav cannon against the horde army.


I think the issue with power levels is as follows.

1.) IF min-maxing they are likely to lead to more army lists that are identical, especially if they allow for sideboarding.
2.) GW has said they are going to adjust points going forward, while they could do this with power level it is much more difficult to do so as each PL is a fairly large bump in points.
3.) Power level as a side board is terribly unbalanced. If you want to go that way, have opponents reveal factions and build lists at the table.

 jamopower wrote:

hobojebus wrote:

GodDamUser wrote:
I think the big stickler is that people are thinking all the options are 'free'

That's because pl is so Ill defined the devs said its a median value but that's a worthless statement lacking all required context.

Not knowing what the devs think an average load out is we can't do anything other than see upgrades as free.

Pl should of had that median loadout listed so you know what that power level is actually worth.

It's hard to see the logic here. If 5 power level gives you 5 marines, with lascannon, plasmapistol and a power fist, then 5 power level is worth exactly that. Then you can compare that to something else that you get with 5 PL and see how it compares. Just like you compare units with points. Or you could as well say something like unit of reavers is worse than unit of skyweavers with similar points cost, one of them clearly gets stuff for free.

We are in this situation anyway 30 boyz and 30 stormboyz are the same pl but ones clearly the better choice.

Breng77 wrote:
That might be true if they had not then went on to say we should use PL as a way to sideboard. That removes all opportunity cost in list building because if you take flexible units (basically all imperial units) you have no opportunity cost as you can list tailor your upgrades to the best option for the list you are facing. There is no opportunity cost when I have a lascannon against the mech list, and a grav cannon against the horde army.

Are you sure this is a bad thing? One of the more frustrating aspects of 7th edition was that the inflexibility you are praising encouraged building skew lists. 5x Knights, 14x Rhinos, 200x Zombies, Riptide Wing + WK + Stormsurge, 4x FMCs, etc. You certainly didn't see many balanced lists because it was an advantage to produce a mismatch.

I would rather them use both. 2000 point army cap and a 100 PL cap.

The army has to be both at or under 2000 points and at or under 100 PL.

Yoyoyo wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
That might be true if they had not then went on to say we should use PL as a way to sideboard. That removes all opportunity cost in list building because if you take flexible units (basically all imperial units) you have no opportunity cost as you can list tailor your upgrades to the best option for the list you are facing. There is no opportunity cost when I have a lascannon against the mech list, and a grav cannon against the horde army.

Are you sure this is a bad thing? One of the more frustrating aspects of 7th edition was that the inflexibility you are praising encouraged building skew lists. 5x Knights, 14x Rhinos, 200x Zombies, Riptide Wing + WK + Stormsurge, 4x FMCs, etc. You certainly didn't see many balanced lists because it was an advantage to produce a mismatch.

It's great if you're any of the Imperium armies, or Chaos Marines. They have loads of flexibility within their squads. Tau also get a lot of flexibility in their suits. Then you have an army like Necrons that gets shafted because one of their defining characteristics is a lack of customisability in their squads. The advantages of PL in providing an opportunity to sideboard don't apply equally across all armies, which is just one more reason they're unsuitable for tournament play.

Well then you have to reduce PL for units like Necrons Warriors don't you? It's why they exist as a balance mechanism. Format will always have an effect on how useful a unit is.

And Necrons most assuredly have some customization, maybe you've never seen a Wraith without Whip Coils in a 7th Ed tournament but they do have some options available.

hobojebus wrote:

 jamopower wrote:

hobojebus wrote:

GodDamUser wrote:
I think the big stickler is that people are thinking all the options are 'free'

That's because pl is so Ill defined the devs said its a median value but that's a worthless statement lacking all required context.

Not knowing what the devs think an average load out is we can't do anything other than see upgrades as free.

Pl should of had that median loadout listed so you know what that power level is actually worth.

It's hard to see the logic here. If 5 power level gives you 5 marines, with lascannon, plasmapistol and a power fist, then 5 power level is worth exactly that. Then you can compare that to something else that you get with 5 PL and see how it compares. Just like you compare units with points. Or you could as well say something like unit of reavers is worse than unit of skyweavers with similar points cost, one of them clearly gets stuff for free.

We are in this situation anyway 30 boyz and 30 stormboyz are the same pl but ones clearly the better choice.

Yes, that's what I have tried to say. Both systems have similar flaws. The end result is not very different, but just looks different.

Slipspace wrote:

Yoyoyo wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
That might be true if they had not then went on to say we should use PL as a way to sideboard. That removes all opportunity cost in list building because if you take flexible units (basically all imperial units) you have no opportunity cost as you can list tailor your upgrades to the best option for the list you are facing. There is no opportunity cost when I have a lascannon against the mech list, and a grav cannon against the horde army.

Are you sure this is a bad thing? One of the more frustrating aspects of 7th edition was that the inflexibility you are praising encouraged building skew lists. 5x Knights, 14x Rhinos, 200x Zombies, Riptide Wing + WK + Stormsurge, 4x FMCs, etc. You certainly didn't see many balanced lists because it was an advantage to produce a mismatch.

It's great if you're any of the Imperium armies, or Chaos Marines. They have loads of flexibility within their squads. Tau also get a lot of flexibility in their suits. Then you have an army like Necrons that gets shafted because one of their defining characteristics is a lack of customisability in their squads. The advantages of PL in providing an opportunity to sideboard don't apply equally across all armies, which is just one more reason they're unsuitable for tournament play.

Right it penalizes armies with specialized units. IF I'm orks and I bring Tank bustas to deal with vehicles, and face infantry I have no option to swap their weapons in a way that makes them good. Same with things like eldar fire dragons etc. So it forces all armies to run the most generalist units available in order to benefit from such a side board. Or as mentioned Necrons, bringing Heavy destroyers. Many armies don't have good flexible units so they must specialize their units, which leads to a situation where skew lists cause a mismatch against some armies and not others. I think if you want to go the "side board route" and are using power levels, I would go the Malifaux route for army building. You go to the table knowing the mission, each player reveals their faction(s) which must be fixed, then build lists quickly using Power level. The down side to this is the sheer amount of models needed in 40k would make it obnoxious and packing and unpacking things would get old. But at least then you don't end up in situations where one army can always specialize and the other is stuck. In a Power level side board meta, I just picture armies of Space Marine Devestators and Razorbacks spamming and winning, because you have essentially 6 heavy weapons and you swap them up to counter your opponents army. Facing Tank heavy IG, I've got 42 lascannon shots, and 7 hunter killer missiles., facing hoard orks, I have 112 S5 shots, and 84 S 6 shots. Still have some room for re-rolls from pedro cantor, and an apothecary, and Conversion beamer tech marine. Easily wiping over 100 orks per turn, or against tanks you are looking at 80 + wounds each turn.

But if specialized units are not worth in that kind of environment, how they would be worth in normal system, where one would think that having more generalized units would be even better when you can't tailor your army Against the enemy, thus requiring to have units that are good Against as many opponents as possible?

 jamopower wrote:
But if specialized units are not worth in that kind of environment, how they would be worth in normal system, where one would think that having more generalized units would be even better when you can't tailor your army Against the enemy, thus requiring to have units that are good Against as many opponents as possible?

Nope the opposite is true. A unit having the option to specialize (taking a Grav cannon vs a lascannon) is vastly different when you are locked into that choice. So in the current format with no flexibility, a marine player makes a choice that x unit is going to be used for anti-tank/MC. This is the same choice as the Eldar player taking fire dragons. In a side board format, the marine player isn't making a choice at all, other than that this unit can be whatever I want it to be, whereas the Eldar player needs to lock in his choice prior to the event. Now many times people will opt for units that have no options but can do both jobs, but they are typically worse at each job. So I could just take S 6 shooting and hope to torrent down a knight, but the marine player with his 42 lascannons is at a huge advantage in that regard. The difference with fixed lists is that if that space marine player takes 42 lascannons, he loses to horde armies.

Essentially if everyone is incentivized to take generalist units, that is ok, but what we are talking about is one player being able to specialize their units to match the opponent while the other player has to take generalist units.

Breng77 wrote:

 jamopower wrote:
But if specialized units are not worth in that kind of environment, how they would be worth in normal system, where one would think that having more generalized units would be even better when you can't tailor your army Against the enemy, thus requiring to have units that are good Against as many opponents as possible?

Nope the opposite is true. A unit having the option to specialize (taking a Grav cannon vs a lascannon) is vastly different when you are locked into that choice. So in the current format with no flexibility, a marine player makes a choice that x unit is going to be used for anti-tank/MC. This is the same choice as the Eldar player taking fire dragons. In a side board format, the marine player isn't making a choice at all, other than that this unit can be whatever I want it to be, whereas the Eldar player needs to lock in his choice prior to the event. Now many times people will opt for units that have no options but can do both jobs, but they are typically worse at each job. So I could just take S 6 shooting and hope to torrent down a knight, but the marine player with his 42 lascannons is at a huge advantage in that regard. The difference with fixed lists is that if that space marine player takes 42 lascannons, he loses to horde armies.

Essentially if everyone is incentivized to take generalist units, that is ok, but what we are talking about is one player being able to specialize their units to match the opponent while the other player has to take generalist units.

Well yes, I see your point and it's true in some degree. But still true specialized units like fire dragons will always be better in that role than tectical marines and such. It's just matter if that role is important enough to have in your army, then the unit might be worth it. So when it seems like vehicles are something that you can expect to face, fire dragons (or similar) should be a good choice in both systems, whereas it seems that heavy elite infantry is not so big thing to worry about, thus units like howling banshees have no role in either of the systems. Of course units like havocs would shine in the "equipment sideboarding" as they can specialize against many different kind of enemies.

hobojebus wrote:

We are in this situation anyway 30 boyz and 30 stormboyz are the same pl but ones clearly the better choice.

That's never going to be true, no matter how many times you repeat it.

Boyz and Stormboyz have different upgrade options.

 jamopower wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 jamopower wrote:
But if specialized units are not worth in that kind of environment, how they would be worth in normal system, where one would think that having more generalized units would be even better when you can't tailor your army Against the enemy, thus requiring to have units that are good Against as many opponents as possible?

Nope the opposite is true. A unit having the option to specialize (taking a Grav cannon vs a lascannon) is vastly different when you are locked into that choice. So in the current format with no flexibility, a marine player makes a choice that x unit is going to be used for anti-tank/MC. This is the same choice as the Eldar player taking fire dragons. In a side board format, the marine player isn't making a choice at all, other than that this unit can be whatever I want it to be, whereas the Eldar player needs to lock in his choice prior to the event. Now many times people will opt for units that have no options but can do both jobs, but they are typically worse at each job. So I could just take S 6 shooting and hope to torrent down a knight, but the marine player with his 42 lascannons is at a huge advantage in that regard. The difference with fixed lists is that if that space marine player takes 42 lascannons, he loses to horde armies.

Essentially if everyone is incentivized to take generalist units, that is ok, but what we are talking about is one player being able to specialize their units to match the opponent while the other player has to take generalist units.

Well yes, I see your point and it's true in some degree. But still true specialized units like fire dragons will always be better in that role than tectical marines and such. It's just matter if that role is important enough to have in your army, then the unit might be worth it. So when it seems like vehicles are something that you can expect to face, fire dragons (or similar) should be a good choice in both systems, whereas it seems that heavy elite infantry is not so big thing to worry about, thus units like howling banshees have no role in either of the systems. Of course units like havocs would shine in the "equipment sideboarding" as they can specialize against many different kind of enemies.

Sure fire dragons are better than Tactical marines at their role, but they are also 6 power and not 5, they will get 3 more melta shots. The problem is you have no idea that you will face vehicles prior to seeing your opponents list. So the tactical squad can be good against either a vehicle or infantry. But why are you taking tactical marines at all in a PL system? You will take Sternguard for 7 PL, or Devestators for 7 PL. So for 1 power more than fire dragons, I am essentially just as good at anti-tank (can take comb-meltas/plasmas, and heavy weapons) and better by far against infantry. So as the elder player do I want to be stuck on having a choice that is single role, or will I only take things like Wraithguard, that can be either, or Dark reapers that are passible at either, and cheaper. My overall point is that you make it so that the only options worth taking are those that have options to be multi-role. So all armies will consist of only those units. Power Level without side board is slightly better, but at that point I'm not sure what the advantage is over just playing points.

I was using the units as examples without knowing the exact point costs, you can substitute the units with whatever you want. The point was just that no matter if you are able to switch your army list before the game, the units that are good against largest variety of opponents and the units that are very good Against units you are most likely facing (so good in the particular meta) will always be best. When talking about tournament environment or random pick up games.

This is a meta question, what units you'll actually wind up facing on the TT depends on player choices.

So will a specialist unit like Fire Dragons be useful? Depends on what the enemy brings. If you are only talking about sideboarding upgrades and not units, they will still have targets.

What about the enemy bringing more anti-infantry weapons in response? Well, then they won't have bigger weapons if you bring a mix of vehicles and bigger targets.

Well how about if we go back to 7th edition. "I'm bringing 5 Wraithknights, by the way you can't exchange your Flamers and Heavy Bolters for Grav". Is this what we think represents what 40K should be? Imagine a RTS like Starcraft as if you had to pick 3 units before the game and couldn't alter your army composition in response to your opponents' choices.

Regarding Sternguard, instead of a one-trick pony like Melta, you have a very adaptable veteran unit. So maybe if you know Sternguard are good, plan ahead and bring some anti-infantry (or a unit that can adjust to handle them). Meta is complicated and this is why you won't be able to see everything in advance. It needs to be playtested.

 jamopower wrote:
I was using the units as examples without knowing the exact point costs, you can substitute the units with whatever you want. The point was just that no matter if you are able to switch your army list before the game, the units that are good against largest variety of opponents and the units that are very good Against units you are most likely facing (so good in the particular meta) will always be best. When talking about tournament environment or random pick up games.

This is only true if you are actually switching your list each game. If you are keeping the same units, but allowed to switch upgrades/wargear, then units that are able to specialize at will are by far the best. So what happens is you bring all units that are flexible and no specialist units get played. Some armies lack these units, so those armies in turn cannot compete well. I would rather have points that will be adjusted for imbalance over time, to flexible lists that result in a stale meta.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yoyoyo wrote:
This is a meta question, what units you'll actually wind up facing on the TT depends on player choices.

So will a specialist unit like Fire Dragons be useful? Depends on what the enemy brings. If you are only talking about sideboarding upgrades and not units, they will still have targets.

What about the enemy bringing more anti-infantry weapons in response? Well, then they won't have bigger weapons if you bring a mix of vehicles and bigger targets.

Well how about if we go back to 7th edition. "I'm bringing 5 Wraithknights, by the way you can't exchange your Flamers and Heavy Bolters for Grav". Is this what we think represents what 40K should be? Imagine a RTS like Starcraft as if you had to pick 3 units before the game and couldn't alter your army composition in response to your opponents' choices.

Regarding Sternguard, instead of a one-trick pony like Melta, you have a very adaptable veteran unit. So maybe if you know Sternguard are good, plan ahead and bring some anti-infantry (or a unit that can adjust to handle them). Meta is complicated and this is why you won't be able to see everything in advance. It needs to be playtested.

But unless your units are flexible, you end up stuck with that anti-infantry even if you face 5 Knights. Which is true now, but the PL sideboard is allowing some armies to get around this reality, and not others.

Unless your LIST is flexible.

Specialized units are maybe still worth their points. It will depend on how a Sideboard meta evolves, and those are going to be dynamic as players react to each other.

That's without considering adjusting PL values, and that's also part of any real balance project.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Unless your LIST is flexible.

Specialized units are maybe still worth their points. It will depend on how a Sideboard meta evolves, and those are going to be dynamic as players react to each other.

That's without considering adjusting PL values, and that's also part of any real balance project.

except most flexible lists don't hold up against skew lists, so your list will never be as flexible as one full of flexible units. I don't think it will end up being very dynamic because the number of top units will be very limited. I also think given the lack of granularity adjusting PL values is much more difficult.

Breng77 wrote:
except most flexible lists don't hold up against skew lists, so your list will never be as flexible as one full of flexible units.

First, you need to clarify what you mean by "flexible". It doesn't simply mean "generalist", which skew lists are designed to upset.

Secondly, you're right. But "flexible" is not necessarily synonymous with "effective". Guardians have more weapon flexibility, but can they supersede a specialist unit like Fire Dragons to knock out a tank?

I think you are overestimating the impact of choice a bit. I don't believe ther would be so much difference. Twin assault cannon razorbacks would still be good units, just as basilisks etc. You could take lascannons Against them, but most likely you would take lascannons Anyways most of the time.

 jamopower wrote:
I think you are overestimating the impact of choice a bit. I don't believe ther would be so much difference. Twin assault cannon razorbacks would still be good units, just as basilisks etc. You could take lascannons Against them, but most likely you would take lascannons Anyways most of the time.

Yes those units are still good, but Against say an all knight army the ability to swap them out for Twin lascannon razorbacks is very significant. Choice allows you to never be in a situation where those units are sub-optimal. So take sternguard, without the ability to swap wargear a squad outfitted will all combi-meltas is sub-optimal against horde orks. That same squad with choice suddenly switches to all combi-flamers and heavy flamers. That is a big difference. Similarly if they had the anti-infantry load out and ran into all tank IG, they would be sub-optimal, if they can swap out to meltas, then they are better. The point is that in a TAC army list you are unlikely to take all lascannons, or all flamers. In a list where you can switch out, you will do just that when it suits you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yoyoyo wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
except most flexible lists don't hold up against skew lists, so your list will never be as flexible as one full of flexible units.

First, you need to clarify what you mean by "flexible". It doesn't simply mean "generalist", which skew lists are designed to upset.

Secondly, you're right. But "flexible" is not necessarily synonymous with "effective". Guardians have more weapon flexibility, but can they supersede a specialist unit like Fire Dragons to knock out a tank?

By flexible in this context I am referring to units possessing options that allow them (in a side board PL meta) to always be a relatively optimal unit choice.


You are right that flexible, doesn't necessarily mean effective, often for Xenos armies it doesn't at all because they lack very flexible units. The guardians are more flexible (slightly) than fire dragons because they have heavy weapons teams, but the fire dragon exarch could have a flamer, so it is not a big difference in flexibility, guardians are mostly anti-infantry, but could pick up a couple anti-tank shot. Storm Guardians are basically in the same boat, they get a couple of weapons. A flexible elder unit would be something Like Wraithguard, because they can go all in on either anti-tank or anti-infantry as the demand warrants. Dark Reapers are more generalist as their guns can address both big units and infantry, though not super great against infantry. War Walkers are probably the most flexible eldar unit, as each one can take 2 heavy weapons, but they are pricey for that output (They are 4 PL more than Marine Devestators for the same number of heavy weapons.)


This is true for most Xenos armies (and daemons) Imperial armies and CSM often have squads that have a lot of weapon options, the same is true for Tau. Most xenos don't have this and would be forced to try to be generalist to compete, or play a TAC list, and potentially get hard countered.

It just gets ugly when you don't have any of the modded upgrades actually modeled anywhere. Now every sergeant has a plasma pistol, power ace, and combi weapon, when he's modeled as bolt pistol chain sword. Or sponsons on a storm raven. These are practically auto include in power levels but you may think twice at Matched points. Adrenal glands and toxin sacks for everyone! I wish there was some middle ground, but I know alot of gamers in my area that had no qualms proxying before that are gonna have a field day now. And I can't blame them either if you're not maxing out your upgrades you're not getting the best value.

Breng77 wrote:

 jamopower wrote:
I think you are overestimating the impact of choice a bit. I don't believe ther would be so much difference. Twin assault cannon razorbacks would still be good units, just as basilisks etc. You could take lascannons Against them, but most likely you would take lascannons Anyways most of the time.

Yes those units are still good, but Against say an all knight army the ability to swap them out for Twin lascannon razorbacks is very significant. Choice allows you to never be in a situation where those units are sub-optimal. So take sternguard, without the ability to swap wargear a squad outfitted will all combi-meltas is sub-optimal against horde orks. That same squad with choice suddenly switches to all combi-flamers and heavy flamers. That is a big difference. Similarly if they had the anti-infantry load out and ran into all tank IG, they would be sub-optimal, if they can swap out to meltas, then they are better. The point is that in a TAC army list you are unlikely to take all lascannons, or all flamers. In a list where you can switch out, you will do just that when it suits you.

But would there be anynore that kind of armies which main strength is that they can surprise opponent that has not suitable weapons to fight back? I would guess that there would not and that might not be a bad thing for the game.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

hobojebus wrote:

We are in this situation anyway 30 boyz and 30 stormboyz are the same pl but ones clearly the better choice.

That's never going to be true, no matter how many times you repeat it.

Boyz and Stormboyz have different upgrade options.

Except I've said it exactly once....

And 30 of either unit does in fact have the same power level.

 jamopower wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 jamopower wrote:
I think you are overestimating the impact of choice a bit. I don't believe ther would be so much difference. Twin assault cannon razorbacks would still be good units, just as basilisks etc. You could take lascannons Against them, but most likely you would take lascannons Anyways most of the time.

Yes those units are still good, but Against say an all knight army the ability to swap them out for Twin lascannon razorbacks is very significant. Choice allows you to never be in a situation where those units are sub-optimal. So take sternguard, without the ability to swap wargear a squad outfitted will all combi-meltas is sub-optimal against horde orks. That same squad with choice suddenly switches to all combi-flamers and heavy flamers. That is a big difference. Similarly if they had the anti-infantry load out and ran into all tank IG, they would be sub-optimal, if they can swap out to meltas, then they are better. The point is that in a TAC army list you are unlikely to take all lascannons, or all flamers. In a list where you can switch out, you will do just that when it suits you.

But would there be anynore that kind of armies which main strength is that they can surprise opponent that has not suitable weapons to fight back? I would guess that there would not and that might not be a bad thing for the game.

I think it is a bad thing for the game if all armies become the same, because their existence invalidates other armies. I agree armies that are a horrible skew are also bad, but those are much more rare these days (I whish all lord of war armies were not a thing) as everything has a chance to hurt everything else. I just don't look forward to the day that all marine armies are Sterguard/Devestators w/ razorbacks because regardless of build they are an answer to everything. Then against armies with specialists those armies will target the biggest specialist threat first (no target priority really exists in these lists), takes out those few special units and we are back to a problem.