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.

So rather than fix options there's no such obvious need remove options all together.

GW being lazy as usual.

The online obsession with a million meaningless "options" with a near-zero in-game effect has always baffled me. I'd rather have a choice between 5 things with different, defined roles than between 15 things half of which are very similar or practically useless. Having three Russes which are good at anti-horde, anti-heavy infantry and anti-tank is very different to having four choices of anti-tank Russ of which one will be mathematically the best at its particular job, for example.

Got to admit, I still like building lists but much rather prefer doing it for Horus Heresy. I can quickly reel off 165 for a Praetor with Digital Lasers, Iron Halo & Paragon blade, 140 for Tactical marines with a fit on the sergeant, 295 for 5 red butchers with 2 chainfist on the devoured, etc.

I just can't do that with the new system as there is so many different price tags attached to everything. The new system is a much more convoluted way of doing the same thing. Though I assume with the extra granularity GW were hoping for a finer level of balance?

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
I'm torn, on one hand the new IG codex stripped away a ton of wargear options for our units. Many lost a wide variety of equipment and there are a few weapons that were removed entirely.

However, I feel like my actual army has never been this flexible and capable of variation since 5th. The very same units can change radically in purpose and use just by what regiment trait they use now, and you can see some pretty crazy differences in how a list plays even if you just change the regiment title but leave the overall list unchanged. I've had a blast writing up lists for the various regiment types, and even trying to mix and match units in combined regiments to see what works best with the other.

Personally I feel we should've kept all our options and gotten this, but its not nearly as bad as it could've been. Regiment traits should have been linked to the type of army, not homeworld, but there's not really anything stopping you from saying your cadians are say Tallarn or whatever. I don't really like when people talk about how an army should have a "variety of units" or "spam a select few". This is 40k, each army has a different schtick. Something like an ork mob may have a wide variety or units or it may be a dedicated speed freaks klan. An Imperial Guard force may consist only of infantry, or it could be a highly varied combined arms force, etc. It seems weird to try and blame the overabundance/lack of options on that, when ultimately each army is different.

Pretty much this.

Strangely, the thing that bugs me the most is the removal of Power Mauls and Power Axes. I liked having melee options beyond 'sword, other sword, or big fist'.

 vipoid wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
I'm torn, on one hand the new IG codex stripped away a ton of wargear options for our units. Many lost a wide variety of equipment and there are a few weapons that were removed entirely.

However, I feel like my actual army has never been this flexible and capable of variation since 5th. The very same units can change radically in purpose and use just by what regiment trait they use now, and you can see some pretty crazy differences in how a list plays even if you just change the regiment title but leave the overall list unchanged. I've had a blast writing up lists for the various regiment types, and even trying to mix and match units in combined regiments to see what works best with the other.

Personally I feel we should've kept all our options and gotten this, but its not nearly as bad as it could've been. Regiment traits should have been linked to the type of army, not homeworld, but there's not really anything stopping you from saying your cadians are say Tallarn or whatever. I don't really like when people talk about how an army should have a "variety of units" or "spam a select few". This is 40k, each army has a different schtick. Something like an ork mob may have a wide variety or units or it may be a dedicated speed freaks klan. An Imperial Guard force may consist only of infantry, or it could be a highly varied combined arms force, etc. It seems weird to try and blame the overabundance/lack of options on that, when ultimately each army is different.

Pretty much this.

Strangely, the thing that bugs me the most is the removal of Power Mauls and Power Axes. I liked having melee options beyond 'sword, other sword, or big fist'.

And I liked being able to give my Sergeants lasguns and my Stormtrooper Sergeants hellguns.

Haven't had those options since the doctrines book though.

The points being in the back only is stupid.

I get that they want to mske it easier to FAQ/errata points, but it's a hassle when you're unfamimiar with the army. Oh, this Primaris Psyker guy, how much is he. Wait, the mandatory staff is extra points? No?

Just add points to the entry and state that the list in the back takes priority. And would it kill them to have a sheet with the points on them included in every codex? Making a copy of an expensive hardback codex is not my favourite thing to do.

I am liking building lists as wargear was never really a big attraction for me. I would prefer less options, or at lease unique options for specific units. The more options you have for a unit the more difficult it is to balance that unit. Especially with the lack of granularity in the points system. Even more so when multiple units have access to the same weapons. The scale of 40k at this point is much more a game of armies where options should be on the unit level not the individual. Which I guess is part of the issue. When 40k started the scale was much smaller so individual upgrading made sense. NOw much less so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Binabik15 wrote:
The points being in the back only is stupid.

I get that they want to mske it easier to FAQ/errata points, but it's a hassle when you're unfamimiar with the army. Oh, this Primaris Psyker guy, how much is he. Wait, the mandatory staff is extra points? No?

Just add points to the entry and state that the list in the back takes priority. And would it kill them to have a sheet with the points on them included in every codex? Making a copy of an expensive hardback codex is not my favourite thing to do.

It really isn't that tough, just make a photo copy or print out of the points sheet. I would agree that it would be cool to get a points sheet (or maybe a code for a PDF copy) with the codex. I am not a fan of adding points to the unit entries as then changes just cause more confusion.

I can't really identify with the problem in the OP. Orks haven had a proppa armory or wargear list in a very very long time. The last one was in the 3rd edition codex. So, oh well. I'm not really excited about using points although I tend to. I'd just as well move off to power levels. I haven't enjoyed list building in many years. I like the index card idea though. I should probably do that just to speed things up. My units tend to always be the same any way. (another reason power levels would work fine for me.)

 Corrode wrote:
The online obsession with a million meaningless "options" with a near-zero in-game effect has always baffled me. I'd rather have a choice between 5 things with different, defined roles than between 15 things half of which are very similar or practically useless. Having three Russes which are good at anti-horde, anti-heavy infantry and anti-tank is very different to having four choices of anti-tank Russ of which one will be mathematically the best at its particular job, for example.

Believe me, id be happy if my lord had 5 options. But as it stand right now the HQ options for the death guard have between 1 and 2 options. Unless you want to use the gimped copy pasterino options from codex CSM that are totally bad and out of place.

At the very least you should be able to choose if your lord will carry a power first or a sword or terminator armor or power armor, and the nurgle terminators mysteriously forgot how to use power firsts, while the generic copy paste lord (who has less toughness then ordinary troops and no death guard specific special rules) somehow still can equip it.

I don't know about the other new codexes, but the death guard one is rank with bureaucracy.

As someone else pointed out, I hope this is just an entry phase into 8th where they balance things, and more intuitive datasheets will be created later.

Options I took that are absent:

-Chaos Bikers with Pistol & CCW
-Chaos Marines that can take Bolter, Pistol, and CCW
-Chosen Champions with Special Weapons
-3-man Terminator Squads, solo Mutilators and solo Obliterators
-Dirge Casters. Yes, I know you "can" do Auxiliary detachments, but this is limited in matched play. My previously ITC-compliant army is illegal for matched play in 8th now.
-Numerous relics, including: The Burning Brand, Scrolls of Magnus, and *many* Traitor Legion artifacts I never got to test out.

And of course, my Chaos Lord and Sorcerer are index-only since my Lord rode a Disc and my Sorcerer a Palanquin.

And this is just for Chaos Marines. Other players have lost Veteran Doctrines, Looted Wagons, Ardboyz, or *entire armies* in the case of Corsair players.

It's also particularly telling that many of the options in 8th that do cause cries of imba, such as Gulliman, Celestine, Brimstones and Conscripts and Malefic Lords and such, don't even *have* loadout options.

Yes and that should make them easier to balance. That doesn't mean it will happen. That said Aura abilities also make balance difficult.

So here's an example of what I am talking about (and I think others mean too):

The Baneblade used to be a 500 point model that came with stock wargear (back when it was FW only).

Now, it's anywhere from 459 points to 605 points. It has:
- choice between heavy bolters or heavy flamers in sponsons
- choice of 0, 2, or 4 sponsons with any mix of aforementioned heavy flamers or heavy bolters
- a heavy stubber
- a hunter killer missile

Back in 3rd this would have felt like a gakky amount of choice, but compared to the company commander (who can cost anywhere from 30-45 points):

- a pistol (one of 3 choices: laspistol, plasma pistol, bolt pistol)
- a rifle (boltgun only)
- a stabby bit (power sword, chain sword, power fist)
- a free relic (maybe possibly)

It's not even a contest. The Baneblade is literally more customizeable than an IG company commander! What the feth is this gak? There are probably 100,000,000 company commanders (or more!) for every Baneblade, from what, a million different homeworlds? While Baneblades are standard STC-constructed tanks?

If you go through my post history in prior editions, I lamented the removal of options. I fought tooth and nail against people that said "we should remove this, because that will improve balance." I never ever wanted options to be sacrificed on the altar of balance...

... but sadly, it seems they have.

On the other hand, who cares about customising IG commanders in that much detail? I have 3 in my list, and they exist to give orders to people, hold relics, and not get killed if at all possible. If they even shoot their pistol something's gone badly wrong, never mind needing tons of options for other equipment which in an ideal scenario they'd never have to use.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So here's an example of what I am talking about (and I think others mean too):

The Baneblade used to be a 500 point model that came with stock wargear (back when it was FW only).

Now, it's anywhere from 459 points to 605 points. It has:
- choice between heavy bolters or heavy flamers in sponsons
- choice of 0, 2, or 4 sponsons with any mix of aforementioned heavy flamers or heavy bolters
- a heavy stubber
- a hunter killer missile

Back in 3rd this would have felt like a gakky amount of choice, but compared to the company commander (who can cost anywhere from 30-45 points):

- a pistol (one of 3 choices: laspistol, plasma pistol, bolt pistol)
- a rifle (boltgun only)
- a stabby bit (power sword, chain sword, power fist)
- a free relic (maybe possibly)

It's not even a contest. The Baneblade is literally more customizeable than an IG company commander! What the feth is this gak? There are probably 100,000,000 company commanders (or more!) for every Baneblade, from what, a million different homeworlds? While Baneblades are standard STC-constructed tanks?

If you go through my post history in prior editions, I lamented the removal of options. I fought tooth and nail against people that said "we should remove this, because that will improve balance." I never ever wanted options to be sacrificed on the altar of balance...

... but sadly, it seems they have.

I would agree with you if the points structure was granular enough to support those options, but it isn't. The more expensive the model the easier it is to balance the options.

And yet, GW continues to lower prices for everything, to the point that granular balances are more difficult to pull off.
lA Guardsman used to cost 10 points in Second Edition. Crazy, I know.

I just find list building to generally be boring. If you want to be good, you have to spam efective units and min/max detachments to get CP, when IMHO you should be focusing on varied, balanced lists that aren't just trying to take advantage of undercosted/cheap spammable units.

 Corrode wrote:
On the other hand, who cares about customising IG commanders in that much detail? I have 3 in my list, and they exist to give orders to people, hold relics, and not get killed if at all possible. If they even shoot their pistol something's gone badly wrong, never mind needing tons of options for other equipment which in an ideal scenario they'd never have to use.

This is part of the discussion, to be sure, but:

The old options may not be "mathematically optimized" but they were cool, thematic, and fluffy. My buddy used to run an assault IG army back in 3.5. His commander had a power sword, meltabombs, holstered pistol (so it changed), bionics, carapace armour, refractor field, etc.

The sword he never traded out because it was an heirloom weapon, he had a whole story written about how he got his bionics (blown up by one of my LRBT battlecannons), he carried meltabombs because he so often encountered enemy armour (me), and his regiment was a heavy infantry regiment (so everyone who could had carapace armor, which at the time was everyone).

That sort of fluff is gone now - all because meltabombs and bionics weren't "mathematically optimal" and carapace armour also needed to go for some reason. Balance or somesuch I suspect.

 Corrode wrote:
On the other hand, who cares about customising IG commanders in that much detail? I have 3 in my list, and they exist to give orders to people, hold relics, and not get killed if at all possible. If they even shoot their pistol something's gone badly wrong, never mind needing tons of options for other equipment which in an ideal scenario they'd never have to use.

I don't get why this is an argument.

If you want a stock company commander then you always have that option anyway. So what harm does it do to give options for people who want to customise their commanders?

 MagicJuggler wrote:
And yet, GW continues to lower prices for everything, to the point that granular balances are more difficult to pull off.
lA Guardsman used to cost 10 points in Second Edition. Crazy, I know.

The issue is that if you really want customization and balance they should cost something like 100 points, and games should be 20,000, But yes the more GW reduces costs the larger the issue becomes.

 vipoid wrote:

I don't get why this is an argument.

If you want a stock company commander then you always have that option anyway. So what harm does it do to give options for people who want to customise their commanders?

Well they are fantastically cheap, immune to being targeted unless sniper/closest unit, have very useful utility abilities, a respectable number of wounds, and you can take up to 15 of them in matched play at 2k.

If each one had, for example, just a plasma gun available to them, they would in fact be one of the lamented "spam the most efficient" units instead of the useful include 2-3 units they are now. For comparison, imagine if you could only kill one hellblaster a turn in a unit of 10, since they'd have better cost/damage ratios, and significantly higher survivability thanks to closest unit only.

Ditto on melta guns, arguably still valid for grenade launchers. The only question mark would be sniper rifles (ala General Castor) but even then, a company commander + sniping ability, however minor, is still quite potent for a 'tax' unit that is also dirt cheap.

That said, there's no reason you can't play fancy commanders in narrative; that's basically what it's for after all.

Breng77 wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
And yet, GW continues to lower prices for everything, to the point that granular balances are more difficult to pull off.
lA Guardsman used to cost 10 points in Second Edition. Crazy, I know.

The issue is that if you really want customization and balance they should cost something like 100 points, and games should be 20,000, But yes the more GW reduces costs the larger the issue becomes.

I don't think you need to go that far. Just doubling the points of a lot of units (and then adjusting up or down a little) would make a big difference, I think.

For example, let's take the Conscript issue (prior to the Commissar nerf). One of the main problems is that IG infantry are all pretty close together - with basic Infantry being 4pts and Conscripts being 3pts.

However, if you doubled the prices to 8pts and 6pts for guardsmen and conscripts, respectively, then you'd have more wriggle room. You could, for example, add 1pt to Conscripts without making them the same price as Infantry. It would also allow you to more easily tweak the cost of Infantry, without necessarily having to also increase the cost of Veterans and such to maintain the difference between them.


EDIT:

 malamis wrote:

Well they are fantastically cheap, immune to being targeted unless sniper/closest unit, have very useful utility abilities, a respectable number of wounds, and you can take up to 15 of them in matched play at 2k.

If each one had, for example, just a plasma gun available to them, they would in fact be one of the lamented "spam the most efficient" units instead of the useful include 2-3 units they are now. For comparison, imagine if you could only kill one hellblaster a turn in a unit of 10, since they'd have better cost/damage ratios, and significantly higher survivability thanks to closest unit only.

I don't understand how this relates to anything that's been said in this thread.

Who in this thread has been asking for the option of Plasmaguns on their IG commanders?

Right: Balance.

Options are being sacrificed on the altar of balance. Just like I said they would be if people got their way.

The game is leaning more toward the Fantasy Battle scheme of things: your "model" is the unit.
They are looking to have us play larger games and push for the "Power" points to be used if needing a points value.

Putting weapon, unit and gear points in the back is diabolical since you cannot get straight in your head capability to points value until you figure them out in an army list builder.
I just write them down on the unit card.

For list building "fun" it was because it was highly critical everything you picked to be competitive in the game.
There is less emphasis now since it actually has much more balance in the game than it used to.

I agree that sure, you can give a huge selection of stuff to kit out your army but it bogs down the game with all that customization.
I look at the need for greater customization in skirmish games where the size of one squad (about 10 models) is your entire army.

It would be nice to see if some measure of focus on tactics and strategy can occur in place of army list building.

 vipoid wrote:


I don't understand how this relates to anything that's been said in this thread.

Who in this thread has been asking for the option of Plasmaguns on their IG commanders?

Commander customisation; if we go down that rabbit hole why stop at powermaul/axe/lance? Hell why not have IG commanders hefting heavy bolters like Harker?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Right: Balance.

Options are being sacrificed on the altar of balance. Just like I said they would be if people got their way.

There is a difference between options and meaningful options.

The differentiation mechanically between a power sword, maul, or axe didn't do much to dramatically alter the game. It was unnecessary, made balance harder, offered very little meaningful impact on the table from your choice, and posed WYSIWYG issues. As a player, a power weapon being simply a power weapon was better because it allowed freedom to model what I wanted and just call it a power weapon. It simplified the game, and offered a meaningful choice between no power weapon and a fist.

As much as I like Russes, there are way too many variants, and every edition since I've started has seen more than half be mostly useless. Russes could be broken down into simply two or three variants and it would functionally be the same thing; then players could model the weapon they wanted for the variant.

Less, but more meaningful choices is better for the game than dozens of meaningless and terribly balanced options.

 malamis wrote:
Commander customisation; if we go down that rabbit hole why stop at powermaul/axe/lance? Hell why not have IG commanders hefting heavy bolters like Harker?

So no unit should have any customisation at all, lest it lead to imbalance in the future?

 MagicJuggler wrote:

Hoodwink wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

Hoodwink wrote:
I personally enjoy not having a ton of options per unit but having some.

The problem with having a ton of options is that everyone will just migrate to whatever the "best" option is and all the others become obsolete anyways. What's the point of having 18 different weapon options if people are going to use 2 or 3 regardless? Having a couple options still gives you a loadout specific for a job, but not extra stuff people will just whine and complain about not being good enough.

By this logic, what's the point of GW releasing new model lines if only one unit is any good? Final destination.

Because the entire reason to not have 1000 options per unit is so units have a specific gap in the army to fill and don't do everything. Otherwise, you get units that do everything and push out other units, making less diverse armies. By reducing the amount of variables, you make the game easier to balance and force people to diversify their list in order to cover all bases. When you can take one unit and give them anti-tank, anti-infantry, long range, number of shots, or any other type of variance, you create a situation where that unit is better than other units that don't have all those options which is what brings the unit spam. Inevitably there are units that will be considered "better" than other units but reducing the ability to make them better by gear is one step in diversifying the playfield.

So wait, you're saying reducing options makes for more diversity?

If you can make a unit that is great at everything at an affordable cost, this is because the points are off, not because diversity is the problem. Honestly, I can't believe I've ever read such a set of statements here on Dakka.

Yes, reducing the ability for a unit to do anything increases diversity by forcing people to take other units to accomplish the goals they need. So you're saying if my one unit can take a ton of equipment options to accomplish anything I want it to, I guess that makes for a diverse army list. Gotcha. Reduced options also make it so people whine and moan less about options being useless or way better than others. Cause ultimately people will whine and complain about everything they can on the internet. By giving options but not a huge plethora of them, it forces people to diversify their armies and helps with internal balance. Every single previous edition that had a plethora of other options ended up making half or so nigh unusable. Then all people did was gripe and moan about the useless gear. It's much easier to balance the game and diversify the lists when you have units that can each take an option of a handful of upgrades as opposed to 10+ each.

If it's a points balance issue and another unit can do what one unit with an upgrade can do better, then it just means the gear upgrade is useless.

You know why people are praising 8th on it's release as one of the most balanced editions yet? Because there weren't a multitude of options on every unit that needed to be balanced that would inevitably break the game or cause 90% of the options to be useless.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Right: Balance.

Options are being sacrificed on the altar of balance. Just like I said they would be if people got their way.

There is a difference between options and meaningful options.

The differentiation mechanically between a power sword, maul, or axe didn't do much to dramatically alter the game. It was unnecessary, made balance harder, offered very little meaningful impact on the table from your choice, and posed WYSIWYG issues. As a player, a power weapon being simply a power weapon was better because it allowed freedom to model what I wanted and just call it a power weapon. It simplified the game, and offered a meaningful choice between no power weapon and a fist.

As much as I like Russes, there are way too many variants, and every edition since I've started has seen more than half be mostly useless. Russes could be broken down into simply two or three variants and it would functionally be the same thing; then players could model the weapon they wanted for the variant.

Less, but more meaningful choices is better for the game than dozens of meaningless and terribly balanced options.

That's not true at all.

The axe example I agree with, to be fair - the difference between a sword and an axe in company scale engagements is pretty irrelevant. But meltabombs? Those could make (or their failure to exist could break!) an engagement! Bionics? Sure on a 6+ it was unreliable, but when it did work it could totally shift the game. I think those were awesome options.

As for having 15 unusable options and only 3 good ones out of 18 options - that's better than having 3 good options and nothing else. I get that Bionics and Meltabombs and Carapace Armour were probably not great on IG officers, and in fact the whole Heroic Senior Officer concept was a bit naff (4 wounds, initiative 4, other useless crap that didn't help him be an orderbot).

But it was fluffy. Perhaps competitive players don't use those 15 options, and focus on the last 3, but a fluffy player? Certainly! Heavy infantry regiments are totally deleted from the game now (bye carapce armour) unless you play a Storm Trooper regiment (which is totally different than a heavy infantry regiment fluffwise, btw). Assault guard commanders are completely deleted unless you want to run a special character (I suppose my lithe duelist from a gas-giant mining colony who looks more like an elf than a dwarf and who is holding a fencing rapier and needle pistol could totally pass for Straken ). And I suppose the "augmetic armour" that the Vostroyan commander gets as his relic is a neat version of bionics... if my regiment weren't an assault heavy infantry regiment that didn't benefit at all from +6" range to its guns (bye generic Bionics, you have been missed!) and I suppose if my commander fights armour often because he has slowly specialized his company into an elite tank-hunter assault/ambush force means he can have a ... plasma pistol (bye Meltabombs!).

((DISCLAIMER: I don't play this regiment. I'm just basing this off of how my friend's assault IG army would run this edition: essentially it wouldn't.))

 malamis wrote:

 vipoid wrote:


I don't understand how this relates to anything that's been said in this thread.

Who in this thread has been asking for the option of Plasmaguns on their IG commanders?

Commander customisation; if we go down that rabbit hole why stop at powermaul/axe/lance? Hell why not have IG commanders hefting heavy bolters like Harker?

Harker's a Sergeant. He's also an Elites choice rather than an HQ and can't issue Orders.

Anyways, I'll go out on a limb and say this:
All I want are Sergeants and Tempestors to have access to the basic weapons that their squad has. That's all. I don't want guys running around with Plasma Guns or whatnot.

It's silly that out of all the armies out there, we're basically the only one where the mandatory leader in a squad has to come equipped differently to the squad. AdMech and Marines don't have to come with melee+pistol weapons, they get to choose to do so.

There is a happy middle ground between only 3 options and 18 options of which only a handful are useful.

I'm not talking about removing certain gear altogether, but rather removing redundant gear. Power weapons were redundant. The three grenade variants are fine (frag, krak, melta).