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.

To return to the matter at hand, I don't believe the wargear of the game is a problem - I believe the scale of the game doesn't add up to the wargear. Or the other way around, if you're so inclined.

Example - In an Epic sized game, each weapon don't care one bit unless it's very different from the standard formula (A bolter and a heavy bolter isn't THAT different, but a bolter and a lascannon is), and function in a generalized manner. 40K does this in some places - All normal close combat weapons are just simple weapons, and an Invulnerability save is pretty much anything unpiercable by normal weapons, including reflexes and force fields. On the other hand we have Skirmish sized games, where each model can be very detailed and work very independently - Here, the changes to wargear fit very well, and you can get very accurate and specific with it. 40K does this as well: There are different types of grenades for all sorts of stuff, Vehicles have all manners of different rules from the main models and Individual models can be granted special rules for them only.

And that's the thing - 40K isn't specifically one size. It wants to be a Skirmish wargame and an Epic sized wargame and a Battle Wargame and have Air Support and Melee and shooting and gargantuan creatures and individual small models who have to be moved as a single entity and much more - All in one basket. That's what I believe creates so many problems - It doesn't try and do one thing well, but a lot of things without placing focus on what the game's about. In the end, you end up having either too many or too few rules, all the time - I cannot fathom why the melee rules are so convoluted and random, but that's for smaller games - When I want to play a large game, I'll then be forced to use the same oddly specific rules to do exactly the same. If I want to shoot a tank, I use one set of rules. If I want to hit a Flyer, I use another and if I want to hit a normal model, I use a third.

So, that's the problem with Wargear. It is never appropriate, because the game has no decided size.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

I mean yes, one can make the case a chain saw is a scarier weapon than a knife, but then SM players will want to always put Chainswords on their assault marines, whereas now you can arm them with spears, or flails, or swords, or karate chops.

This actually made me google "karate chopping space marines".

Agreed about the whole game-size problem.

In terms of oddities with wargear, let's say I have 2 CCSs (call them A and B), both with Vox Casters and Lascannons. Now, what do you think would be the most reliable way to issue a 'Bring it Down' Order to squad A?

Use the Company Commander in squad A? Are you mad? No, you use the Company Commander in Squad B. That Vox Caster makes him much more reliable at issuing orders to squad A than the Company Commander actually in squad A.

I don't think Chains words need an AP. As mentioned, they're actually pretty bad at cutting armour, the place they're better than knives is once they're through the armour. The spinning metal teeth are going to tear up flesh far better, and whatever it cuts is going to be a bloody mess (whereas a knife might just leave a neat incision).

So it is in wounding that Chainswords should be better, but not to the extent of having Shred. Rerolls on 1 to wound would be the best solution, I think.

 Cothonian wrote:
I think that Chainswords should at least have AP6... Anything to make using a Chainsword slightly more powerful than punching an opponent with my fist.

In regards to other terrible wargear interpretation, well I always thought that perhaps the standard lasguns could also feature AP6, the idea being that they could at least penetrate the weakest infantry armor. However that would nullify the point of having 6+ saves so perhaps that's not the best idea.

In FFG's 40k ine of products, chainswords have Pen 2 - which would roughly translate as AP6. On the other hand, Lasguns only get Pen with an overload shot (or Hot-Shot ammo)

 Paradigm wrote:
I don't think Chains words need an AP. As mentioned, they're actually pretty bad at cutting armour, the place they're better than knives is once they're through the armour. The spinning metal teeth are going to tear up flesh far better, and whatever it cuts is going to be a bloody mess (whereas a knife might just leave a neat incision).

So it is in wounding that Chainswords should be better, but not to the extent of having Shred. Rerolls on 1 to wound would be the best solution, I think.

Isn't that what shred does?

No, Shred is all wound rolls.

Oh, really? That seems a lot more powerful than I thought Shred was...

 The Wise Dane wrote:
To return to the matter at hand, I don't believe the wargear of the game is a problem - I believe the scale of the game doesn't add up to the wargear. Or the other way around, if you're so inclined.

Example - In an Epic sized game, each weapon don't care one bit unless it's very different from the standard formula (A bolter and a heavy bolter isn't THAT different, but a bolter and a lascannon is), and function in a generalized manner. 40K does this in some places - All normal close combat weapons are just simple weapons, and an Invulnerability save is pretty much anything unpiercable by normal weapons, including reflexes and force fields. On the other hand we have Skirmish sized games, where each model can be very detailed and work very independently - Here, the changes to wargear fit very well, and you can get very accurate and specific with it. 40K does this as well: There are different types of grenades for all sorts of stuff, Vehicles have all manners of different rules from the main models and Individual models can be granted special rules for them only.

And that's the thing - 40K isn't specifically one size. It wants to be a Skirmish wargame and an Epic sized wargame and a Battle Wargame and have Air Support and Melee and shooting and gargantuan creatures and individual small models who have to be moved as a single entity and much more - All in one basket. That's what I believe creates so many problems - It doesn't try and do one thing well, but a lot of things without placing focus on what the game's about. In the end, you end up having either too many or too few rules, all the time - I cannot fathom why the melee rules are so convoluted and random, but that's for smaller games - When I want to play a large game, I'll then be forced to use the same oddly specific rules to do exactly the same. If I want to shoot a tank, I use one set of rules. If I want to hit a Flyer, I use another and if I want to hit a normal model, I use a third.

So, that's the problem with Wargear. It is never appropriate, because the game has no decided size.

I was about to step in and say something like this, but you said it much better than I did.
I was going to reference power armor and how Space Marines don't feel at all like they do in the fluff. They're just expensive cannon fodder for holding objectives. (And sometimes not even that.)

 MWHistorian wrote:

 The Wise Dane wrote:
To return to the matter at hand, I don't believe the wargear of the game is a problem - I believe the scale of the game doesn't add up to the wargear. Or the other way around, if you're so inclined.

Example - In an Epic sized game, each weapon don't care one bit unless it's very different from the standard formula (A bolter and a heavy bolter isn't THAT different, but a bolter and a lascannon is), and function in a generalized manner. 40K does this in some places - All normal close combat weapons are just simple weapons, and an Invulnerability save is pretty much anything unpiercable by normal weapons, including reflexes and force fields. On the other hand we have Skirmish sized games, where each model can be very detailed and work very independently - Here, the changes to wargear fit very well, and you can get very accurate and specific with it. 40K does this as well: There are different types of grenades for all sorts of stuff, Vehicles have all manners of different rules from the main models and Individual models can be granted special rules for them only.

And that's the thing - 40K isn't specifically one size. It wants to be a Skirmish wargame and an Epic sized wargame and a Battle Wargame and have Air Support and Melee and shooting and gargantuan creatures and individual small models who have to be moved as a single entity and much more - All in one basket. That's what I believe creates so many problems - It doesn't try and do one thing well, but a lot of things without placing focus on what the game's about. In the end, you end up having either too many or too few rules, all the time - I cannot fathom why the melee rules are so convoluted and random, but that's for smaller games - When I want to play a large game, I'll then be forced to use the same oddly specific rules to do exactly the same. If I want to shoot a tank, I use one set of rules. If I want to hit a Flyer, I use another and if I want to hit a normal model, I use a third.

So, that's the problem with Wargear. It is never appropriate, because the game has no decided size.

I was about to step in and say something like this, but you said it much better than I did.
I was going to reference power armor and how Space Marines don't feel at all like they do in the fluff. They're just expensive cannon fodder for holding objectives. (And sometimes not even that.)

It could have been said so much less convuleted that what I wrote

Anyway, Armour did always bother me in this game... Why was we don't get armour reduction again? Why should so many weapons downright ignore weapons like 6+ or 5+, when it's already as effective as it should be - As a little help once in a while. I mean, the rules were taken from Fantasy, a game where reduction of armour makes sense and where Armour is about as effective to loads of arrows as they are against cannons - AS IT SHOULD BE. When you port that to 40K, change guns to downright ignore armour and bring even more powerful guns to the mix, you are BOUND to have a game that isn't designed to what it tries to represent...

I play Kill Team now, 'cause I really feel that's a size the game actually works at. Would love reduction of armour saves still, but you got to take what you can't don't you...

tgjensen wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

I mean yes, one can make the case a chain saw is a scarier weapon than a knife, but then SM players will want to always put Chainswords on their assault marines, whereas now you can arm them with spears, or flails, or swords, or karate chops.

This actually made me google "karate chopping space marines".

I don't have a pic but my first 3rd edition army I did a karate assault marine. Catachan Head (with the bandana painted white with a red dot) and using the 2nd edition fist hand and open hand to make a karate chop and a fist at the side.

And some skaven shuriken on his belt to rep the bolt pistol.

And that is why we should not have special rules for chain swords.

Because karate chops.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:
Agreed about the whole game-size problem.

In terms of oddities with wargear, let's say I have 2 CCSs (call them A and B), both with Vox Casters and Lascannons. Now, what do you think would be the most reliable way to issue a 'Bring it Down' Order to squad A?

Use the Company Commander in squad A? Are you mad? No, you use the Company Commander in Squad B. That Vox Caster makes him much more reliable at issuing orders to squad A than the Company Commander actually in squad A.

Oh yeah the vox rules are seriously bizarre, they make me wonder if anyone who worked on the codex has acually seen a radio or even heard about them...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 The Wise Dane wrote:

And that's the thing - 40K isn't specifically one size. It wants to be a Skirmish wargame and an Epic sized wargame and a Battle Wargame and have Air Support and Melee and shooting and gargantuan creatures and individual small models who have to be moved as a single entity and much more - All in one basket. That's what I believe creates so many problems - It doesn't try and do one thing well, but a lot of things without placing focus on what the game's about.

And that's the crux of it.

Very well said.

There've been rumors from time to time that GW would make a skirmish game, but nothing comes of them because why would GW want to encourage you to use/buy FEWER models?

Ideally you'd have say 3 levels of rules getting less granular as games get larger.

A while back for Apoc I suggested that vehicle damage be replaced wtih 1-3 stunned, 4-6 destroyed because at that scale who the #$%^ cares if Rhino #43 lost its storm bolter?

But alas it will have to wait until I become CEO. They passed me over this time but I'm sure they'll hire me next time.

My biggest issue with Vox is the range. Because somehow, radios make people withing yelling range understand you better. I don't see why just giving them +6" on Command range wasn't done.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 The Wise Dane wrote:

And that's the thing - 40K isn't specifically one size. It wants to be a Skirmish wargame and an Epic sized wargame and a Battle Wargame and have Air Support and Melee and shooting and gargantuan creatures and individual small models who have to be moved as a single entity and much more - All in one basket. That's what I believe creates so many problems - It doesn't try and do one thing well, but a lot of things without placing focus on what the game's about.

And that's the crux of it.

Very well said.

There've been rumors from time to time that GW would make a skirmish game, but nothing comes of them because why would GW want to encourage you to use/buy FEWER models?

Ideally you'd have say 3 levels of rules getting less granular as games get larger.

A while back for Apoc I suggested that vehicle damage be replaced wtih 1-3 stunned, 4-6 destroyed because at that scale who the #$%^ cares if Rhino #43 lost its storm bolter?

But alas it will have to wait until I become CEO. They passed me over this time but I'm sure they'll hire me next time.

Thanks! I actually just read through the rules for the Psychic Phase a minute ago, and I was like "This is a whole other game. You could seriously make a game out of this system without a problem." It was kinda creepy actually, a whole part of the system I didn't know anything about... So integral one, too.

This is one of the reasons I'd like to play Epic - It's an appropriate size for the universe. It's, maybe, a bit simplistic, but it looks great and fits the tone well enough for me. Same with games like Mordheim and Necromunda among others - They fit the lore with rules made to hit the right feel of the game. Even freaking Fantasy does this better I'd say - The only game I don't feel hit the size as well as 40K does must be Warmahordes. No bad thing about the game, but it isn't so much a game of awesome stories as an actual strategic game with mindgames and synergy, where the setting is filled with heroes and wars that would make the First World war look like a freaking picnic.

But on the thing that fewer models needed wouldn't make less models isn't necessarily true... I've bought more models than ever since I started playing Kill Team: Heralds of Ruin, because I can buy a few boxes, play them and then be interested in buying more to supplement my team, or buy new models to try something else - If you have an incentive to buy more over time, it'll stay fresh, but if you got to buy and paint massive amounts of models before playing (and knowing if you want to play in the first place), you won't be a staying customer. Infinity, Malifaux and to some extend Warmahordes do this and follow this approach, too.

At least we'll have Eternal Crusade and Mordheim: City of the Damned to tickle those Epic and Skirmish fancies...

I only played Epic Space Marine (mid-90s) and it was a great game but also suffered from GW's inability to pass up a bizarre rule or mechanic.

You had to draw cards to see what mutations your chaos units go.

You had to draw cards to see what random mek modifications your orks got.

You had templates for everything from the Wave Serpent force field to Foot of Gork (and/or Mork).

And heaven help you if you lost any of these 1000 peices of cardboard because there were no replacements to be had.

At it's core it was a great strategic game but in practice...

That's why 3rd edition is still my favorite for getting level of granularity 'right'.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
I only played Epic Space Marine (mid-90s) and it was a great game but also suffered from GW's inability to pass up a bizarre rule or mechanic.

You had to draw cards to see what mutations your chaos units go.

You had to draw cards to see what random mek modifications your orks got.

You had templates for everything from the Wave Serpent force field to Foot of Gork (and/or Mork).

And heaven help you if you lost any of these 1000 peices of cardboard because there were no replacements to be had.

At it's core it was a great strategic game but in practice...

That's why 3rd edition is still my favorite for getting level of granularity 'right'.

On that note, some of my friends have been talking about Flames of War... It's the right size, but I'm not much for the Second World War, or the reality, really. Maybe if you play modern engagement in the Middle East, that'd be cool - Two completely different forces trying to out-sneak each other in a the outskirt of a city.

The Storm bolter the elite of the elites first pick can barely compete with the standard issue rifle the standard issue space marine is equipped with...

Bishop F Gantry wrote:
The Storm bolter the elite of the elites first pick can barely compete with the standard issue rifle the standard issue space marine is equipped with...

I think that's mainly due to the massive buff rapid fire weapons got in 6th. In 5th, when you could only fire 24" by remaining stationary, Storm Bolters were a lot more useful.

Then, of course, we have the problem that basic weapons haven't kept pace with the escalation of the game.

bibotot wrote:

Also, why does Lysander of the Imperial Fists Defender of Terra have Terminator Armor, Iron Halo and Storm Shield, giving him 5++, 4++ and 3++ respectively? Isn't it be nicer if we could get entire squads of dudes wielding Thunder Hammer, Storm Shield and Artificer Armor that can overrun enemies in close combat?

I'm not sure if this is supposed to be a joke so I'll treat it as if it's not.

Termie Armor gives you 5++. Straight up Terminators get this.

Iron Halo give you 4++. Captains with Iron Halos and POWER armor still get this.

Storm Shield gives you 3++. Crusaders with Flak Armor, Power Swords and Storm Shields still get this.

Lysander just happens to have all three pieces that give you all three of these Invuls, so he gets them all. Silly? I suppose.

 Bobthehero wrote:
Yes, lets make flak armor even MORE pointless and have the guardsmen die even faster in CC, sure as sure.

Uh, it's actually a good thing. As Peregrine would say, you want to be wiped out asap so that you can shoot the attackers.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Uh, it's actually a good thing. As Peregrine would say, you want to be wiped out asap so that you can shoot the attackers.

Not always.

We might want to charge with a blob-squad and try to overwhelm them with numbers.

At worst, we want to fail our Ld and run. Getting killed more easily really doesn't help us.

 vipoid wrote:

Bishop F Gantry wrote:
The Storm bolter the elite of the elites first pick can barely compete with the standard issue rifle the standard issue space marine is equipped with...

I think that's mainly due to the massive buff rapid fire weapons got in 6th. In 5th, when you could only fire 24" by remaining stationary, Storm Bolters were a lot more useful.

Then, of course, we have the problem that basic weapons haven't kept pace with the escalation of the game.

Rapid Fire has been buffed in every edition but the last one. So while (storm)bolters have kept the same stats since 3rd, the rules have changed beneath them, making what was once a significantly better gun a marginal upgrade.

Twin-Linked is IMO one of the most counter-intuitive.

Background-wise, if you weld together two weapons, you should probably get two "impacts" on the same hit, but two "misses" if the shot goes wide. Probably something like "roll to hit only once, but double damage/re-roll to wound/re-roll to penetrate/etc... when you hit", etc..

Instead, it's the exact opposite. A re-roll to hit, but only damage once. It is the effect you would expect when you do not weld two weapons together, but shoot them at different angles. Higher probability that at least one of them hits, but (basically) no chance of a "double-hit" as they never aim at the same point.

Personally like rerolling 1 for wounds would be fine for Chain swords. or just ap6 at best.

Would REALLLY like concussive to change to on successful hits rather than wounds as it makes more sense.

Yeah re-rolling 1s in close combat when wielding a chainsword does sound like the best option.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
I only played Epic Space Marine (mid-90s) and it was a great game but also suffered from GW's inability to pass up a bizarre rule or mechanic.

You had to draw cards to see what mutations your chaos units go.

You had to draw cards to see what random mek modifications your orks got.

You had templates for everything from the Wave Serpent force field to Foot of Gork (and/or Mork).

And heaven help you if you lost any of these 1000 peices of cardboard because there were no replacements to be had.

At it's core it was a great strategic game but in practice...

That's why 3rd edition is still my favorite for getting level of granularity 'right'.

Well hey, the newest edition of Epic (: Armageddon) doesn't have any of that stuff. Far more streamlined game. It's also OOP, of course, so you have to go ebay-hunting for the models, but it's a quite nice game. And the difficulty of obtaining models makes me all nostalgic for when I first started playing as a kid and you couldn't just go out and buy a whole army at once, but had to save up for each new model.

I actually like to think its biggest advantage is that GW isn't involved in it anymore.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Maces are better because they actually bypass the armor entirely. It doesn't matter how strong your armor is(to a point) because the shockwave will still transition right through it into your body to break bones. cause internal bleeding, and turn organs into jelly.

You might have armor which couldn't be penetrated by anything, but you're still vulnerable to impact and having your joints ripped apart. Its why a marine can die when he gets run over by a tank. The impact ended up being forceful enough to incapacitate him.

If it simply a question of getting through armor, then lots of things simply couldn't kill a marine at all. But armor is only part of the equation.

Until, that is, you invent impact-absorbing gelpacks that fit under your armor to absorb and disperse the impact of a mace. In such instances, the sword is, once again, a superior weapon to a mace.

If the blunt object (mace) is incapable of deforming the armor it strikes, and is likewise incapable of transferring kinetic force to the person inside said armor, then it's pretty useless against an armored foe. We have such impact-absorbing gels and materials available in today's technology, it would not at all surprise me if the "electrically motivated fiber bundles" that allow a suit of power armor to move serve a similar role.

As everyone has stated above, it would be ridiculous to make Chainswords anything different then what they are. They are a "standard" close combat weapon, and because of the scaling of the game, it doesn't need anything more.

However, I will admit, it is weird to see Scything Talons be AP6 and Chainswords are not.

I wouldn't mind chainswords rerolling 1s to-wound.

It's a minor bonus, but still a nice nod to their being at least a bit better than a basic knife.

 Torga_DW wrote:
Ah for the good old days of 3rd edition, where you could buy a commander and a chain sword for him and not see any difference.

I think the problem is their stance on weapons. I never understood why power weapons were so special that they needed their own subcategories to such a degree (counting the grey knight stuff on top of the basic stuff). Meanwhile the original problem with ccws still exists.

Isn't a power hammer a thunder hammer? And i don't buy the axe speciality - axes are heavy, they're not *that* heavy, especially when the powerfield is doing the work. They shouldn't be striking as slow as a fist.

They do swing slow and are highly cumbersome when they're as stupidly large and thick as power axes in 40K. Real life axe-heads used in war were typically the size of a dinner plate, if not smaller usually. And even with power fields, they would still be atrocious weapons with little reach compared to a power sword.

Now if only they could get rid of axes and hammers and replace them with power crow's beaks.

Wonderwolf wrote:
Twin-Linked is IMO one of the most counter-intuitive.

Background-wise, if you weld together two weapons, you should probably get two "impacts" on the same hit, but two "misses" if the shot goes wide. Probably something like "roll to hit only once, but double damage/re-roll to wound/re-roll to penetrate/etc... when you hit", etc..

Instead, it's the exact opposite. A re-roll to hit, but only damage once. It is the effect you would expect when you do not weld two weapons together, but shoot them at different angles. Higher probability that at least one of them hits, but (basically) no chance of a "double-hit" as they never aim at the same point.

I would think of it like buckshot. The idea is not so much accuracy, but to throw as many bullets as you can down range, where you care only about hitting the target, not necessarily about how where it hurts.