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.

Making WS/BS dependent on the weapon seems sensible to me. A marksman is likely to be more accurate firing their sniper rifle than when falling back to their pistol.

In Dropzone different weapons had different accuracy on the same vehicle, I really don't mind either way though. If in prevents extra rules, I'm all for it

Tbh at this point having watched several editions come and go, I'm just excited to get some armies on the table and play through the early datacard/index ecosystem. Once codexes and bloat come back in though, I imagine everyone will probably fall off, similar to what happened with 8th.

I won't give it a ringing endorsement until I finally get to read the core rules, but at least GW remembered their success with 8th by keeping initial entry relatively easy/simple.

Brickfix wrote:
In Dropzone different weapons had different accuracy on the same vehicle, I really don't mind either way though. If in prevents extra rules, I'm all for it

So instead of remembering one or two additional USR's that can be broadly applied across the entire game, you prefer to remember potentially hundreds of varying stat values?



I still have not read a convincing reason why having the BS and WS on the weapon profile is good.

@Voss; @Catbarf: Surely the both of you are not suggesting that a weapon should hit on a fixed value regardless of who / what is wielding it.

 oni wrote:

Brickfix wrote:
In Dropzone different weapons had different accuracy on the same vehicle, I really don't mind either way though. If in prevents extra rules, I'm all for it

So instead of remembering one or two additional USR's that can be broadly applied across the entire game, you prefer to remember potentially hundreds of varying stat values?



I still have not read a convincing reason why having the BS and WS on the weapon profile is good.

@Voss; @Catbarf: Surely the both of you are not suggesting that a weapon should hit on a fixed value regardless of who / what is wielding it.

It's just moving where the hit value is.
What's the difference between remembering "Marines hit on a 3+, Powerfist has a -1 penalty" and "Marines hit on a 3+, but with a Powerfist a 4+"?

Back in 3rd-7th with comparative WS, we would've lost something there. But that was already lost in the translation from 7th to 8th.

 oni wrote:


I still have not read a convincing reason why having the BS and WS on the weapon profile is good.

Its simple : it reduces clutter on the datasheet and gives more ways to modify a unit.

No more "Turret weapon" rule, just give it straight up +1 BS on the stat itself
No more "you get -1 to hit with that weapons" on powerfists
No more "sniper rifle that hits on a 6" on guardsmen

Now theyre able to properly stat weapons independently of the base unit. Much cleaner and better approach


OH and since theyre providing us with cards as game aids, it means that figuring out the attack sequence is gonna be litterally one line instead of needing to alternate between the unit's stats and the weapon's stats (yeah, thats a tiny microscopic amount of time saved but its still a difference)

 JNAProductions wrote:

 oni wrote:

Brickfix wrote:
In Dropzone different weapons had different accuracy on the same vehicle, I really don't mind either way though. If in prevents extra rules, I'm all for it

So instead of remembering one or two additional USR's that can be broadly applied across the entire game, you prefer to remember potentially hundreds of varying stat values?



I still have not read a convincing reason why having the BS and WS on the weapon profile is good.

@Voss; @Catbarf: Surely the both of you are not suggesting that a weapon should hit on a fixed value regardless of who / what is wielding it.

It's just moving where the hit value is.
What's the difference between remembering "Marines hit on a 3+, Powerfist has a -1 penalty" and "Marines hit on a 3+, but with a Powerfist a 4+"?

Back in 3rd-7th with comparative WS, we would've lost something there. But that was already lost in the translation from 7th to 8th.

Having the BS and WS in the weapon profile means:
1. There cannot be weapon options beyond what is specifically listed on a datasheet. There is no insignificant number of units where all weapon options do not / cannot fit.
2. A repository list of weapons cannot be done, compounding issue no.1.

Something is being sacrificed to make this new profile workable.

 oni wrote:


Having the BS and WS in the weapon profile means:
1. There cannot be weapon options beyond what is specifically listed on a datasheet. There is no insignificant number of units where all weapon options do not / cannot fit.
2. A repository list of weapons cannot be done, compounding issue no.1.

Something is being sacrificed to make this new profile workable.

yes, thats the whole point of the datasheet, all the rules are in the same spot.....

Its a feature, not a bug.

 oni wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 oni wrote:

Brickfix wrote:
In Dropzone different weapons had different accuracy on the same vehicle, I really don't mind either way though. If in prevents extra rules, I'm all for it

So instead of remembering one or two additional USR's that can be broadly applied across the entire game, you prefer to remember potentially hundreds of varying stat values?



I still have not read a convincing reason why having the BS and WS on the weapon profile is good.

@Voss; @Catbarf: Surely the both of you are not suggesting that a weapon should hit on a fixed value regardless of who / what is wielding it.

It's just moving where the hit value is.
What's the difference between remembering "Marines hit on a 3+, Powerfist has a -1 penalty" and "Marines hit on a 3+, but with a Powerfist a 4+"?

Back in 3rd-7th with comparative WS, we would've lost something there. But that was already lost in the translation from 7th to 8th.

Having the BS and WS in the weapon profile means:
1. There cannot be weapon options beyond what is specifically listed on a datasheet. There is no insignificant number of units where all weapon options do not / cannot fit.
2. A repository list of weapons cannot be done, compounding issue no.1.

Something is being sacrificed to make this new profile workable.

Can you give us your top 10 of units where you can't fit them all on? I'm wagering the bulk are marine units who need some options consolidating anyway imo.

Strongly lean towards KISS here, rather than bloated complexity and excess book keeping.

Dudeface wrote:

 oni wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 oni wrote:

Brickfix wrote:
In Dropzone different weapons had different accuracy on the same vehicle, I really don't mind either way though. If in prevents extra rules, I'm all for it

So instead of remembering one or two additional USR's that can be broadly applied across the entire game, you prefer to remember potentially hundreds of varying stat values?



I still have not read a convincing reason why having the BS and WS on the weapon profile is good.

@Voss; @Catbarf: Surely the both of you are not suggesting that a weapon should hit on a fixed value regardless of who / what is wielding it.

It's just moving where the hit value is.
What's the difference between remembering "Marines hit on a 3+, Powerfist has a -1 penalty" and "Marines hit on a 3+, but with a Powerfist a 4+"?

Back in 3rd-7th with comparative WS, we would've lost something there. But that was already lost in the translation from 7th to 8th.

Having the BS and WS in the weapon profile means:
1. There cannot be weapon options beyond what is specifically listed on a datasheet. There is no insignificant number of units where all weapon options do not / cannot fit.
2. A repository list of weapons cannot be done, compounding issue no.1.

Something is being sacrificed to make this new profile workable.

Can you give us your top 10 of units where you can't fit them all on? I'm wagering the bulk are marine units who need some options consolidating anyway imo.

I'd suggest you all just go read an actual AoS data card. There's plenty of room on the standard card. And they CAN (and do) make multi-page cards. Picture on one side, stats on the next 3 sides.
If you can, take a look at the Belekor or mega- gargant cards.
I'm sure even the plague marines loadout restrictions will fit.

 catbarf wrote:
If you're already using a homebrew campaign system and aren't concerned with balance, you can pretty easily make up your own relics.

You don't need GW to spoonfeed you rules to have a narrative. Especially not at the detriment of casual and competitive play.

Yes, if I wanted to spend my time making up 5-10 extra relics per faction I certainly could do that. A lot faster when I don't have to though, right?

Yes, if I wanted to invent five trials to achieve Sainthood, I could. A lot easier when I don't have to though, right?

If I wanted to invent 12 Dark Eldar territories to capture, I could. So much better that I don't have to though, right? More time to just play.

Seriously CB, you don't need GW to spoonfeed you either- why don't you make up you your own game?

Dude, I respect you. You post a lot of intelligent stuff on this board, and even when I disagree, I see the value of your commentary. I am shocked that you can't see the advantages of having so many ready made tools when you're running campaigns for people. It's like the Monster Manual for D&D, in that no GM uses EVERY monster in the book... But people are glad they are there, even when they aren't used, because who knows what's in the next campaign.

Surely someone who has made so many good points in the past can see this?

I own every published adventure for all the 40k RPGs, yet I have never run a single one. Every time I got one of those books, the first thing I did was jump to the back at the "Adversaries" sections to see what new rules for bad guys, monsters and other NPCs were included. "What did we get this time?" was a common phrase when a new book showed up.

I see Crusade in much the same way. It's a lot of "stuff" that's there for anyone to use at any time. It's a whole structure, or it's a jumping off point, or it's a bit of spice for something you've already got running. I don't see it as a detriment to casual/competitive play. How could it be?

Thanks HBMC- I'm glad someone else sees it the way I do.

Crusade isn't perfect, and I'm not saying it can't be improved- some factions have AWESOME content... Like the Drukhari are far and away the winners of Crusade content.

But other factions could have more fleshed out long term goals. Anyway, I know it's not a Crusade thread, and I won't hijack it more than I already have...

PS- Unfortunately I didn't buy as many of the Dark Heresy RPG books as I should have- I only have the Core book and the supplement that lets you create Sisters PCs. They are both excellent, and I still use them as big books of 40k ideas. Seeing how the Sisters progress and earn access to special character subclasses really helped me envision how a convent would function, and how a sister could grow from Novitiate to Palatine.

I haven't done Crusade yet, because it seems so messy, but future me is happy to have it when my kids are older.

I did do crusade and there were fun elements to it, but to ke it quickly became more bloat. I also don't really like how you the xp system just leads to more and more power and does a lot to encourage more death star kind of units.

Finally, the faction specific mechanics in some cases could make for great campaigns but they just aren't interactive at all. You for instance take over planets or the like but that doesn't have an effect on anyone else and also pushes you into one specific storyline.

So for me at least, Crusade doesn't really add much if anything as a campaign system.

 Dolnikan wrote:
I did do crusade and there were fun elements to it, but to ke it quickly became more bloat. I also don't really like how you the xp system just leads to more and more power and does a lot to encourage more death star kind of units.

Finally, the faction specific mechanics in some cases could make for great campaigns but they just aren't interactive at all. You for instance take over planets or the like but that doesn't have an effect on anyone else and also pushes you into one specific storyline.

So for me at least, Crusade doesn't really add much if anything as a campaign system.

I do think crusades big issue is GW not knowing what it wanted it to ever be, and marketing made it sound worse often enough.
It was also more on a system with too much as mentioned, if they actually manage to reign it in crusade maybe a great expansion for campaign play. Would be good as a few books that all offer different experience that interact better for sure I feel.

For why BS/WS on the stat line, so it can be referenced. Terrain based weapons, narrative as well if it comes up.
It’s also not going to be modified often and the space can be used on weapons easy enough now, I also feel it’s just as easy to modify from the main stat as it is for weapon the change brings.
It’s a change that was not really a issue and just ads other things anyway.
Not a big deal.

I tried crusade but dropped out when people were taking hard hitting lists to crusade games. Not fun facing custodes full of forgeworld stuff or the like in what was meant to be a fun narrative thing

That's not the fault of Crusade though...

True, but if Crusade had more restrictions... in any event I think the system itself is great and hope they can improve on it.

A lot of good points here...

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I haven't done Crusade yet, because it seems so messy, but future me is happy to have it when my kids ate older.

I actually agree with this- if any of my Crusades hit 100PL, I'm sure I'll find the book keeping to be a chore. At 25-50PL it's no biggie, but I could see it getting cumbersome.

 Dolnikan wrote:
I did do crusade and there were fun elements to it, but to ke it quickly became more bloat. I also don't really like how you the xp system just leads to more and more power and does a lot to encourage more death star kind of units.

It certainly can. I only take upgrades that reflect the narrative... So for example if I earn a battle honour during a fight where all of my kills came from shooting attacks, I won't purchase a BH that buffs WS even if that's numerically advantageous... But there's nothing that forces or even explicitly recommends that people play that way- I just do it cuz it's what I do.

 Dolnikan wrote:

Finally, the faction specific mechanics in some cases could make for great campaigns but they just aren't interactive at all. You for instance take over planets or the like but that doesn't have an effect on anyone else and also pushes you into one specific storyline.

I somewhat agree here too, although it's different from faction to faction. Planet conquering is something that could really be improved. If you combine the rules for System design from Tau with planet designs from both GSC and Nids, you create a system full of planets that can be fought over by all 3 factions.

The Commorragh stuff is super interactive, but works best in Drukhari vs Drukhari games, making it a bit weird.

GK Nemsis Daemon units are probably the most interactive content.

Apple fox wrote:


I do think crusades big issue is GW not knowing what it wanted it to ever be

Kinda agree here too- the idea that you can play Crusade against people who aren't also playing Crusade did require certain compromises that may have adversly affected Crusade on Crusade battles. I think GW should lean into narrative mode, with the caveat that most of us can figure out fair(ish) ways to use our Crusade force in a game of matched play. I've done it a couple times- I suppressed all of my Crusade upgrades and used Secondaries like my opponent (rather than Agendas), but I still went through the post battle sequence to pick up RP and I still chose a unit to be marked for greatness. A few of the long-term goal quests can still be given attention during game play even without Agendas in the mix.

Leaning into narrative mode would allow GW to do things like add a campaign system to the Crusade rules. As it currently exists, we have seen a few suggested campaign systems added into Crusade through a combination of Mission Packs and Hard-back campaign books, and this is certainly better than not campaign system at all... But it is a bit inelegant, because it changed from season to season- meaning you needed extra books to do it, and there was never a baseline campaign system in the BRB that stayed static.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
That's not the fault of Crusade though...

Obviously, I agree. But careful brother- pretty soon adversaries of Crusade will be accusing you of blaming people for playing wrong, and you might be accused of being an apologist or a white knight.

In any case, I've got my fingers crossed for a big book of Crusade dropping alongside the BRB- something that contains all the generic Crusade of the current BRB plus a few well developed campaign systems that remain consistent options throughout the lifespan of the edition, plus all the bespoke content for every faction, so that every faction can get the full Crusade experience even before their dex arrives.

 catbarf wrote:
If you're already using a homebrew campaign system and aren't concerned with balance, you can pretty easily make up your own relics.

You don't need GW to spoonfeed you rules to have a narrative. Especially not at the detriment of casual and competitive play.

Catbarf, I agree with an awful lot of your posts. I think you make some very intelligent and eloquent points.

But this is one case where I think you're being very unfair.

Given that relics are one of the few avenues of customisation we have left, I don't think it's unreasonable to want to keep the variety that exists currently.

And I especially don't want the selection to be effectively made by whatever tournament players take most. Because it is all but guaranteed to result in the surviving artefacts being the most boring ones currently available. I don't want to see all the fun and flavourful options cut just because Timmy Tournament Tits picks the bland-but-effective option every single time.

Moreover, I'm not even seeing the gain here. Keeping artefacts means that narrative players (as well as those willing to sacrifice power for fun/flavour) get to keep their options. I doubt tournament players really care that much because most can probably tell very quickly which artefacts are strongest and so just ignore the rest. Whereas removing artefacts helps... fans of One-Page-Rules, I guess?

Now if you want to argue that many artefacts should just be standard wargear, I'd be 100% behind you. But we both know there's more chance of me riding a winged marshmallow to the Potato Kingdom than there is of GW reversing their policy of NMNR. Thus, artefacts and WLTs remain the only real source of customisation for many characters. I really don't want to see that vanish just so that a £35 book can be a page shorter.

Call me crazy but I find current Crusade easier to keep track of than current matched play.

Any amount of in game bookkeeping is undesirable.

 oni wrote:
Any amount of in game bookkeeping is undesirable.

Most of the Crusade book keeping is outside of the game.

 Gangland wrote:
Call me crazy but I find current Crusade easier to keep track of than current matched play.

You're crazy, Crusade basically ADDS on top of matched play lol


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gangland wrote:

 oni wrote:
Any amount of in game bookkeeping is undesirable.

Most of the Crusade book keeping is outside of the game.

no it's not? Its pretty much only your requisition points and faction-specific points that are ONLY outside the game

Once you use them to buy more units, or upgrade some, it becomes in-game.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Gangland wrote:
Call me crazy but I find current Crusade easier to keep track of than current matched play.

You're crazy, Crusade basically ADDS on top of matched play lol


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gangland wrote:

 oni wrote:
Any amount of in game bookkeeping is undesirable.

Most of the Crusade book keeping is outside of the game.

no it's not? Its pretty much only your requisition points and faction-specific points that are ONLY outside the game

Once you use them to buy more units, or upgrade some, it becomes in-game.

To your first point: And match play now changes every 6 months while crusade has largely stayed the same. If I look for a match play game I have to check off what mission pack and what new stuff that mission pack has and the new wording of the secondaries and which secondaries I can actually take... Crusade can just ask a power level and we can iron out the mission at game time.

Second point: This has to do with semantics as what constitutes "in game." Out of action tests and upgrades/marks/XP I consider out of the "game."

vipoid wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
If you're already using a homebrew campaign system and aren't concerned with balance, you can pretty easily make up your own relics.

You don't need GW to spoonfeed you rules to have a narrative. Especially not at the detriment of casual and competitive play.

Catbarf, I agree with an awful lot of your posts. I think you make some very intelligent and eloquent points.

But this is one case where I think you're being very unfair.

Given that relics are one of the few avenues of customisation we have left, I don't think it's unreasonable to want to keep the variety that exists currently.

And I especially don't want the selection to be effectively made by whatever tournament players take most. Because it is all but guaranteed to result in the surviving artefacts being the most boring ones currently available. I don't want to see all the fun and flavourful options cut just because Timmy Tournament Tits picks the bland-but-effective option every single time.

Moreover, I'm not even seeing the gain here. Keeping artefacts means that narrative players (as well as those willing to sacrifice power for fun/flavour) get to keep their options. I doubt tournament players really care that much because most can probably tell very quickly which artefacts are strongest and so just ignore the rest. Whereas removing artefacts helps... fans of One-Page-Rules, I guess?

Now if you want to argue that many artefacts should just be standard wargear, I'd be 100% behind you. But we both know there's more chance of me riding a winged marshmallow to the Potato Kingdom than there is of GW reversing their policy of NMNR. Thus, artefacts and WLTs remain the only real source of customisation for many characters. I really don't want to see that vanish just so that a £35 book can be a page shorter.

My issue is that relics/WLTs in their current form encapsulate a number of the problems of 8th/9th, and cutting down on the list of relics available is in line with the streamlining that 10th is promising.

-Relics/WLTs don't have any corporeal existence on the tabletop. In a game otherwise largely driven by WYSIWYG, they're a 'trap card' upgrade that can have atypical/unpredictable effects. Granted, they're nowhere near as obfuscated as stratagems (ie, you can actually ask 'what does that guy do?' and get a straight answer), but more possibilities for a single model the greater the risk of gotchas. Ideally, as you say I'd love to just have a bunch of wargear options that all go on the model, but again as you say NMNR rears its ugly head. I don't know why saying that my guy has a bolt pistol when the model has a laspistol is verboten, while saying he has the Magic Necklace of Sundering despite the model having no such item is okay, but whatever.

-On top of that, each faction and each subfaction and each RoR getting their own relics and WLTs adds a considerable amount of design overhead for GW to manage. If the goal is to reduce how much stuff each faction has that requires balancing, then paring down stratagems without doing the same for relics/WLTs would be going halfway.

-And maybe most importantly, the fact that they're all treated as equivalent in value (no points cost) makes both of the above just a mess, because effectiveness varies so wildly. They're also prone to wombo-combos where stacking the right relics, WLTs, and stratagems punches way above their weight.

Also, I think it's misleading to frame the issue as whether GW should keep all the WLTs/relics or just keep the good/competitive ones and throw out the rest. Until the edition releases and tournament results start coming in, GW won't know what the good ones are; if they had that level of ability to assess balance, there wouldn't be 'good' and 'bad' options to begin with. So given that we're looking at a totally new edition with new rules and undoubtedly new and untested balance, the question isn't 'should GW just discard all the bad options?', it's more 'should GW curate the options to a smaller set?'. Based on AOS, I'm inclined to think that GW is capable of giving you better balanced, more fluffy, more fun options at the cost of fewer of them.

That said, I 100% agree with the concern that as GW has stripped out lots of options for customization over the years, and relics/WLTs represent an opportunity to customize Your Dude to be something other than a generic profile. I also would like to see lots of options for character customization. However, I think there are better ways to go about it than the current system.

One of the things that bugs me about the current WLT system is that you don't really have that many options. You get a couple for your faction and then a flanderized one for your subfaction, so opportunity for personalization is limited to a handful of stereotypes. Then with the relics, you have a bunch of options, but many have generic effects with counterparts in other armies, or are simply better versions of normal weapons. I'd much rather have an extensive list of universal WLTs and relics available to any army- more options for your characters, but still less stuff for GW to balance against one another or avoid unwanted interactions- and then a couple of army-specific ones. That's the way they're going with stratagems, and the same approach could work for WLTs/relics. Throw in the option to master-craft a weapon (seriously, there's no reason that should be off the table if upgrading my power sword to the Claw of the Desert Tigers is fine) and you'd have more options with less design overhead.

And maybe I am being unfair, but I think Jake's position here is somewhat contradictory. If he's already okay with creating his own campaign system with extensive rules for territory control, then making up relics for the armies to fight over should be trivial in comparison. It's literally just buffs, and by his own admission he's not concerned with balance. As far as custom content goes, that's pretty straightforward stuff, and he has the opportunity to tailor them to the conflict his narrative is telling.

FWIW I would be completely fine with having something like a curated set of WLTs/relics for casual or competitive play, and then a more extensive list for narrative play without the pretense of being balanced or the expectation that they'll be valid for tournaments. But I don't see that happening right out the gate. Might be a good candidate for a community-created content pack.

(Also GW could just assign points costs, and then there'd be an obvious balance lever that would make the current giant sprawling mess of relics and WLTs more manageable, but I'm assuming that isn't in the cards either)

 oni wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 oni wrote:

Brickfix wrote:
In Dropzone different weapons had different accuracy on the same vehicle, I really don't mind either way though. If in prevents extra rules, I'm all for it

So instead of remembering one or two additional USR's that can be broadly applied across the entire game, you prefer to remember potentially hundreds of varying stat values?



I still have not read a convincing reason why having the BS and WS on the weapon profile is good.

@Voss; @Catbarf: Surely the both of you are not suggesting that a weapon should hit on a fixed value regardless of who / what is wielding it.

It's just moving where the hit value is.
What's the difference between remembering "Marines hit on a 3+, Powerfist has a -1 penalty" and "Marines hit on a 3+, but with a Powerfist a 4+"?

Back in 3rd-7th with comparative WS, we would've lost something there. But that was already lost in the translation from 7th to 8th.

Having the BS and WS in the weapon profile means:
1. There cannot be weapon options beyond what is specifically listed on a datasheet. There is no insignificant number of units where all weapon options do not / cannot fit.
2. A repository list of weapons cannot be done, compounding issue no.1.

Something is being sacrificed to make this new profile workable.

1- Examples, please. The single sample datacard presented is a huge swath of blank space. I suspect the list of units where this is impossible is very, very small indeed, even barring multiple card options. (I can see the space marine and imperial guard heavy weapons lists just being cards in their own right if they _really_ need space) Keep in mind this is a post 8th/9th world, where options for a lot of units were already culled.

2- A repository list neither compounds issue no 1 nor is it impossible. I can think of a few ways to do it off the top of my head (including just a placeholder character (*) that indicates referencing the datacard, the formula (User or User+1) to having no stat changes for characters, so that getting a captain's pin no longer magically makes someone a sharpshooter)

Solutions to the problems you're imagining strike me as easy to find.

@Voss; @Catbarf: Surely the both of you are not suggesting that a weapon should hit on a fixed value regardless of who / what is wielding it.

No? Its on the datacard for a specific unit. The BS/WS for a different unit can obviously be different.

Having "Box set vs. Box set" battles is an asinine idea hatched from the ill brain of a marketing manger. This proves game designers are treated like crap in that company otherwise it wouldn´t come to such an embarrassing development.