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.

 Peregrine wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:
but for something like the Wartrike to be locked into one weapon and one set of extremely specific guns is just... Not orky.

Why not? Why do you need the rules bloat of having tons of options, most of them worse than the 1-2 viable options that anyone ever takes? IMO it's a pretty good thing as long as those single-option units are balanced well, and it even opens up more freedom for conversions because you don't have to worry about WYSIWYG as much.

There's this three letter word that you might not be familiar with, Peregrine - FUN

 Dysartes wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:
but for something like the Wartrike to be locked into one weapon and one set of extremely specific guns is just... Not orky.

Why not? Why do you need the rules bloat of having tons of options, most of them worse than the 1-2 viable options that anyone ever takes? IMO it's a pretty good thing as long as those single-option units are balanced well, and it even opens up more freedom for conversions because you don't have to worry about WYSIWYG as much.

There's this three letter word that you might not be familiar with, Peregrine - FUN

Why does fun require having more rules? Is 7 more fun than 9? Do you need to have the ability to choose between 4 and 6 to have the most possible fun? If you're forced to have 5 does it drain all of the fun out of the game?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:
but for something like the Wartrike to be locked into one weapon and one set of extremely specific guns is just... Not orky.

Why not? Why do you need the rules bloat of having tons of options, most of them worse than the 1-2 viable options that anyone ever takes? IMO it's a pretty good thing as long as those single-option units are balanced well, and it even opens up more freedom for conversions because you don't have to worry about WYSIWYG as much.

There's this three letter word that you might not be familiar with, Peregrine - FUN

Why does fun require having more rules? Is 7 more fun than 9? Do you need to have the ability to choose between 4 and 6 to have the most possible fun? If you're forced to have 5 does it drain all of the fun out of the game?

Hate to be really gatekeepey here (no, actually I don't because you'll just pontificate over this...) but I can tell you've never played as Orks. Customising Ork stuff and having unique vehicles is part of the charm of the army, even moreso than any other 40k faction. 40k thrives on customisation and Orks should be the pinnacle of that with no two vehicles looking the same.

 Grimtuff wrote:
Hate to be really gatekeepey here (no, actually I don't because you'll just pontificate over this...) but I can tell you've never played as Orks. Customising Ork stuff and having unique vehicles is part of the charm of the army, even moreso than any other 40k faction. 40k thrives on customisation and Orks should be the pinnacle of that with no two vehicles looking the same.

You can still customize your models. In fact, you have more room for customization because you don't have to worry as much about breaking WYSIWYG if a unit only has one configuration rules-wise. For example, if a vehicle is armed with "anti-tank gun" instead of a choice of 5 different weapons (only one of which is a viable option if you care about winning) that all do pretty much the same thing you don't have to worry about which of the five guns you glue onto your model. You can just pick the one that looks coolest, or even build something out of parts from another faction.

Having all the same weapons everything sounds so boring though.

pm713 wrote:
Having all the same weapons everything sounds so boring though.

Then clearly you haven't played a more elegantly designed game. You don't need to have 5-10 different versions of the same gun, each with slightly different stats and most of them just worse than the 1-2 viable options, to have a fun and interesting game. 40k's extra options are mostly just rules bloat.

You don't need to have 5-10 different options, true. I agree that there is rule bloat in 40k, and scaling it back a bit might be a good idea. However, it is still nice to have some options, like three guns to choose from or something like that. Furthermore, the different weapons actually exist in the game, you just don't have access to them, so that limits modelling options if you want to stay WYSIWYG. For example, I'd be perfectly fine if power mauls, swords, axes and spears were again combined in one 'power weapon' profile, and you could model it how you like. But this is not the case, so I am not going to model mauls on my Primaris marines to represent swords, as these currently are two different things in the game.

 Peregrine wrote:

pm713 wrote:
Having all the same weapons everything sounds so boring though.

Then clearly you haven't played a more elegantly designed game. You don't need to have 5-10 different versions of the same gun, each with slightly different stats and most of them just worse than the 1-2 viable options, to have a fun and interesting game. 40k's extra options are mostly just rules bloat.

I'm not saying have 5 options for everything, I'm saying having one or two options is boring. If you want to ditch variety for balance then you may as well play chess. Boring (visually) but balanced.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:
but for something like the Wartrike to be locked into one weapon and one set of extremely specific guns is just... Not orky.

Why not? Why do you need the rules bloat of having tons of options, most of them worse than the 1-2 viable options that anyone ever takes? IMO it's a pretty good thing as long as those single-option units are balanced well, and it even opens up more freedom for conversions because you don't have to worry about WYSIWYG as much.

There's this three letter word that you might not be familiar with, Peregrine - FUN

Why does fun require having more rules? Is 7 more fun than 9? Do you need to have the ability to choose between 4 and 6 to have the most possible fun? If you're forced to have 5 does it drain all of the fun out of the game?

This is a good point. Having so many options only works if the unit really makes use of those options. Due to specialization being better than a TAC build for a unit, it always ends up being the same few options.

More options can be nice for modeling, sure, but that's about it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
You don't need to have 5-10 different options, true. I agree that there is rule bloat in 40k, and scaling it back a bit might be a good idea. However, it is still nice to have some options, like three guns to choose from or something like that. Furthermore, the different weapons actually exist in the game, you just don't have access to them, so that limits modelling options if you want to stay WYSIWYG. For example, I'd be perfectly fine if power mauls, swords, axes and spears were again combined in one 'power weapon' profile, and you could model it how you like. But this is not the case, so I am not going to model mauls on my Primaris marines to represent swords, as these currently are two different things in the game.

Which is an interesting case of you not worrying about breaking WYSIWYG. The unit only takes Power Swords? Just go nuts with your weapons as it doesn't matter.

One of those few cases where less options ends up being the modeling benefit.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
You don't need to have 5-10 different options, true. I agree that there is rule bloat in 40k, and scaling it back a bit might be a good idea. However, it is still nice to have some options, like three guns to choose from or something like that. Furthermore, the different weapons actually exist in the game, you just don't have access to them, so that limits modelling options if you want to stay WYSIWYG. For example, I'd be perfectly fine if power mauls, swords, axes and spears were again combined in one 'power weapon' profile, and you could model it how you like. But this is not the case, so I am not going to model mauls on my Primaris marines to represent swords, as these currently are two different things in the game.

Which is an interesting case of you not worrying about breaking WYSIWYG. The unit only takes Power Swords? Just go nuts with your weapons as it doesn't matter.

It matters to me, so I'm not gonna do it.

And the same army could have other types of power weapons, if it had minimarines in it. It becomes confusing to the opponent, not everyone has memorised all the datasheets in the game and would know that they can't have a mace so it must be a sword.

Some WYSIWYG is just horrible though. For example, the whole "chainsword" thing. I'm not pulling apart a dozen ccw sergeants and officers to satisfy the change to 8th edition, or spoiling bolter sergeants by sticking a giant chainsword on their back. I think that simply saying "all of the sergeants have free chainswords" should be sufficient.

 Trickstick wrote:
Some WYSIWYG is just horrible though. For example, the whole "chainsword" thing. I'm not pulling apart a dozen ccw sergeants and officers to satisfy the change to 8th edition, or spoiling bolter sergeants by sticking a giant chainsword on their back. I think that simply saying "all of the sergeants have free chainswords" should be sufficient.

Well, chainsword is just a CCW, the rules for all those various extra close combat weapons across different armies are the same. This is why I gave my Reivers chainswords, as the rules are identical to what their knives have.

 Crimson wrote:
Well, chainsword is just a CCW, the rules for all those various extra close combat weapons across different armies are the same. This is why I gave my Reivers chainswords, as the rules are identical to what their knives have.

Not for Guard. Chainswords are a different weapon that gives +1 attack. They are free, but not a mandatory piece of equipment. For example, an infantry sergeant "may take a chainsword or power sword".

 Trickstick wrote:
Some WYSIWYG is just horrible though. For example, the whole "chainsword" thing. I'm not pulling apart a dozen ccw sergeants and officers to satisfy the change to 8th edition, or spoiling bolter sergeants by sticking a giant chainsword on their back. I think that simply saying "all of the sergeants have free chainswords" should be sufficient.

Exactly.

 Crimson wrote:
You don't need to have 5-10 different options, true. I agree that there is rule bloat in 40k, and scaling it back a bit might be a good idea. However, it is still nice to have some options, like three guns to choose from or something like that. Furthermore, the different weapons actually exist in the game, you just don't have access to them, so that limits modelling options if you want to stay WYSIWYG. For example, I'd be perfectly fine if power mauls, swords, axes and spears were again combined in one 'power weapon' profile, and you could model it how you like. But this is not the case, so I am not going to model mauls on my Primaris marines to represent swords, as these currently are two different things in the game.

Although it might be interesting for SM to be the only customization heavy army in the game - tac marines may actually become tactical (as long as all the weapon options are internally balanced as to take away the no brainer weapon choice) if tac marines by default can mix and match weapons in the manner of kill teams.

Yep, DE was hit hard with that rule, i miss my 5 names characters.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:
but for something like the Wartrike to be locked into one weapon and one set of extremely specific guns is just... Not orky.

Why not? Why do you need the rules bloat of having tons of options, most of them worse than the 1-2 viable options that anyone ever takes? IMO it's a pretty good thing as long as those single-option units are balanced well, and it even opens up more freedom for conversions because you don't have to worry about WYSIWYG as much.

There's this three letter word that you might not be familiar with, Peregrine - FUN

Why does fun require having more rules? Is 7 more fun than 9? Do you need to have the ability to choose between 4 and 6 to have the most possible fun? If you're forced to have 5 does it drain all of the fun out of the game?

I appreciate this might be tricky for you to understand, Peregrine, but not everyone is trying to "solve" 40k into its most optimised state.

A significant portion of the playerbase like having options, both as pieces to be modelled, and as rules to use. Different configurations are favoured by different people, even if in your view they were "sub-optimal" - for example, back in 3rd or 4th edition, I'd run a Mortar HWS. At the time, you could safely argue they were not a good unit - guess range weapon (though playing Dwarfs in WHFB helped here), small blast template, doing bolter hits (from memory), and pinning something once in a blue moon - but they were fun for me to use. If you reduced my options to the "1 or 2 everyone takes" during that edition, you take that option away, as I doubt the vast majority of IG players were bothering with Mortars before 8th...

For a more modern example, compare and contrast the Index and Codex versions of the Eldar Autarch, especially compared to the 7th ed version. There may be an "optimal" set of gear for the Autarch, but you can guaran-damn-tee it that a variety of builds were in use, as different people liked different options (and/or found uses for different options, at least). Boil that down to a few options (especially when based on what the model comes with, like in the Codex), and people are less happy - why do you think they had to backtrack with the Index options flowchart thing? If GW were trying for a "balanced" game, from how you've described it, they would've stood their ground and those options would no longer be options - but they didn't.

 insaniak wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

I think this was mentioned in another thread. It seems there's no longer a requirement in the rulebook to abide by WYSIWYG . . . which makes it even more bizarre that GW is enforcing a 'no model, no rules' policy.

It seems rather incongruous, to say the least.

There never was a requirement in the rulebook to abide by WYSIWYG.

In some past editions, some codexes had a rule stating that upgrades chosen from the armoury for characters needed to be represented on the model, but that's as close as 40K has ever come to having WYSIWYG as an actual, printed rule. WYSIWYG has always been a gaming convention intended to make the game easier to follow, rather than an actual rule.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but as far as I remember the core rules in 3rd and 4th required that every model actually carry the weapons you picked for the list in question. It was annoying because in some cases the kits didn't have all the grenades/pistols/etc that were in the model's base unit entry, that's why it stuck in my memory.

Again, if I recall correctly there wasn't an actual rule called WYSIWYG even though it was in modelling rules, it's just the the abbreviation the community settled on to quickly put across "yes I have exactly modelled every piece of wargear that every model in my army is carrying in this list, you can trust that the guy with the Plasma Cannon is actually carrying a Plasma Cannon."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Trickstick wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Well, chainsword is just a CCW, the rules for all those various extra close combat weapons across different armies are the same. This is why I gave my Reivers chainswords, as the rules are identical to what their knives have.

Not for Guard. Chainswords are a different weapon that gives +1 attack. They are free, but not a mandatory piece of equipment. For example, an infantry sergeant "may take a chainsword or power sword".

Chainswords and Combat Knives both grant +1 attacks on Marines too. They're functionally identical weapons. I have a handful of Combat Knives standing in for Chainswords on models that can't technically carry them because I have a lot more Knives lying around.

The Newman wrote:
Maybe I'm mistaken, but as far as I remember the core rules in 3rd and 4th required that every model actually carry the weapons you picked for the list in question. It was annoying because in some cases the kits didn't have all the grenades/pistols/etc that were in the model's base unit entry, that's why it stuck in my memory.

Again, if I recall correctly there wasn't an actual rule called WYSIWYG even though it was in modelling rules, it's just the the abbreviation the community settled on to quickly put across "yes I have exactly modelled every piece of wargear that every model in my army is carrying in this list, you can trust that the guy with the Plasma Cannon is actually carrying a Plasma Cannon."

I distinctively remember this as well as my friends and I had a huge fight when we were young over this calling each others cheaters for not having the specific weapon they were using while citing that section. But I cant seem to find it in my 3rd ed rulebook. Maybe someone else had better look/luck?

 skchsan wrote:
I distinctively remember this as well as my friends and I had a huge fight when we were young over this calling each others cheaters for not having the specific weapon they were using while citing that section. But I cant seem to find it in my 3rd ed rulebook. Maybe someone else had better look/luck?

I'd like to but I fear I once lent my 3rd edition rulebook to someone and never got it back.

I didn't press the issue, since the game had moved to 4th edition at the time, but I came to regret it and I really do miss that book.

I loved the lore and illustrations, as well as seeing what the old armies and models used to look like.

 skchsan wrote:
But I cant seem to find it in my 3rd ed rulebook. Maybe someone else had better look/luck?

Page 167, top right:

However, and this is very important, any weapon options or model upgrades you take must be represented on or by the models in the unit. You cannot field models that are equipped with weapons and wargear that is not shown on the model, and you may not add model upgrades to a unit unless you have the appropriate model in your collection. The intent of this rule is that when an opponent looks at your army, 'what he sees is what he gets'.

I remember when Marines cost 16pts a model and didn't come with any grenades, and you had to pay for the purity seals modeled on their legs.

 Crazyterran wrote:
I remember when Marines cost 16pts a model and didn't come with any grenades, and you had to pay for the purity seals modeled on their legs.

No, you have that backwards. If you chose to take purity seals then they needed to be represented.

The no model, no rule policy was relevant when they had taken legal actuon against chapter house for providing models for models GW released rules for but not the models. Specifically, mycetic spores, doom of malantai, to mention a few. I believe plastic drop pods were also initially a response against third party models, back when GW only had the poor excuse of a drop pod that was a crater, where the model was so bad that it didnt even had symmetry and looked like a deformed starfish.

I personally find excessive options on a base unit to be counter-productive as most end up being useless and end up just piling on top of each other as wasteful plastic. I used to like it, but looking at the mountain of plastic bits I have I am finally seeing how wasteful this is.

However, I think the way they are going to approach option is that instead of one unit having ton of options they will have more units with less options so it ends up being roughly the same except that you buy the kit you need without storing half of it in a container for the next 10 years. This is in my opinion very apparent in the recent Ork release as we got a lot of new buggies but each had different loadouts. The only real difference is that people might have little less of a clown car syndrome where one squad has dozens of different options equipped.

Also, in regards to having fun modelling, I would have thought making a model cooler with different poses would be the big thing, not only modeling different weapon options. I mean, you can do some cool Archon poses mixing the Scourges and Kabalite kits or Succubus with Wyches(not to mention if you get some Dark Elf kits). There are ton of cool modelling kitbash options available even though we remove excessive options per unit.

My issue is that the default loadouts on newer HQ kits for Craftworld and Drukhari tend to be very underperforming. I mean, I see no reason to have my Archon fielding a blast pistol while engaging in close combat with most units in the game yet he comes equipped with a pistol and a sword. Same goes for the Winged Autarch who is just altogether weird(beautiful model though) with his Fusion Pistol and Power Sword. In short, I find the default loadouts synergize horribly with the army in question most of the time.

Also, in before someone adds something about me not seeing the big picture:

I made my own Vect, Baron, Duke, and so on for Drukhari in previous editions. I also have the original Dais of Destruction, made my own Thunder Hammer Belial, and have several Big Meks with Kustom Forcefields. I still enjoy the models and painting them even though they are not represented rulewise in the game. Even then I can use them to represent existing units so it comes down to the same point. My Dais of Destruction is am epic Dark Lance ravager, my Baron is just a cool looking Hellion for my squad, and so on and so on. These models are still useful even though they don't have explicit rules to depict how super powerful they used to be. They are still cool units in my army despite all the changes in previous editions and no one can take that away from me except by squatting the entire army which at that point I might get super pissed.

 skchsan wrote:
, back when GW only had the poor excuse of a drop pod that was a crater, where the model was so bad that it didnt even had symmetry and looked like a deformed starfish.

Not sure what you're thinking of, but this was never a thing.

 insaniak wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
, back when GW only had the poor excuse of a drop pod that was a crater, where the model was so bad that it didnt even had symmetry and looked like a deformed starfish.

Not sure what you're thinking of, but this was never a thing.

Technically one of GW's licensed partners way back in the old days, but it was a thing.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dysartes wrote:
I appreciate this might be tricky for you to understand, Peregrine, but not everyone is trying to "solve" 40k into its most optimised state.

Great, then reduce the options. The only people who benefit from having lots of similar options are the ones who enjoy doing the math optimization to figure out which one is 5% better than the others, people who just want to play the game benefit from having a simpler game.

A significant portion of the playerbase like having options, both as pieces to be modelled, and as rules to use. Different configurations are favoured by different people, even if in your view they were "sub-optimal" - for example, back in 3rd or 4th edition, I'd run a Mortar HWS. At the time, you could safely argue they were not a good unit - guess range weapon (though playing Dwarfs in WHFB helped here), small blast template, doing bolter hits (from memory), and pinning something once in a blue moon - but they were fun for me to use. If you reduced my options to the "1 or 2 everyone takes" during that edition, you take that option away, as I doubt the vast majority of IG players were bothering with Mortars before 8th...

But mortars are exactly the kind of thing I'd keep! They genuinely fill a different role, not just +/- 5% more damage against certain targets if you do enough math optimization. The issue with redundancy is more like LC HWS vs. ML HWS: both of them are anti-tank weapons, just with a slight tradeoff of better stats vs. secondary (and rarely used and ineffective) frag mode. Most of the time one of them, depending on point costs, is going to be the obvious correct choice and the other is just a slightly weaker version of it. In 5th it was the dirt cheap ML, in 8th it's the superior firepower of the LC. From a gameplay point of view they both have the same role and the same experience outside of math optimization. So a simplified HWS might have three options: anti-tank (LC stat line), anti-infantry (HB stat line), and mortar (mortar stat line). All of the roles are maintained, just with less rules bloat.

 Peregrine wrote:
The only people who benefit from having lots of similar options are the ones who enjoy doing the math optimization to figure out which one is 5% better than the others, people who just want to play the game benefit from having a simpler game.

Not true.

Some people like the aesthetic of a certain item of equipment, and when that item can't be taken, it becomes a very irritating issue.

Take someone with a Primaris Captain, carrying a plasma pistol and a power sword. Now, that's not legal, because despite both weapons being open to a Captain, they can't be taken together. So, what IS this Captain? Hard to tell at a glance, because which is the weapon of focus - the pistol or the sword? How about one with a weapon they never can have - like a storm shield? Even if we think that the idea of reducing the game to a few choices is good and do that, how can we tell what the Captain is because someone valued aesthetic over gameplay?

Some people don't want a simpler game, because being simple means it could lose out on some of the customisation it affords them. Making vehicles ignore armour facings was good for simplicity, but for some people, the simpler it got, the worse it was. Being simple isn't always good, because people have their preferences.

If people don't care for doing the math optimization and just taking what they like, they have options open to them. I don't think that forcing EVERYONE to have to go simple because it would be easier on balance is the right way to go. Keeping 40k as open to as many audiences as possible is a massive strength for Games Workshop, and if they can push the freedom to model and have a varied loadout on hero models especially would be a massive leap in progress.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Some people like the aesthetic of a certain item of equipment, and when that item can't be taken, it becomes a very irritating issue.

Go back and read what I'm talking about. Taking stuff for aesthetics works fine, rules-wise you have an "anti-tank weapon" or "power weapon" and it doesn't matter if you model it as a lascannon or missile launcher, or power sword or power axe. Aesthetic customization works even better under this design principle, since you no longer have to worry about a conflict between what you think looks cool and what rules are best.

Take someone with a Primaris Captain, carrying a plasma pistol and a power sword. Now, that's not legal, because despite both weapons being open to a Captain, they can't be taken together. So, what IS this Captain? Hard to tell at a glance, because which is the weapon of focus - the pistol or the sword?

What about a primaris captain modeled with a volcano cannon? Obviously if you build your models with options that aren't legal together that's a problem, but it's not the one I'm talking about. Power swords and plasma pistols are completely different types of upgrades, they wouldn't be consolidated together.

How about one with a weapon they never can have - like a storm shield?

Even easier. The storm shield has no rules meaning, it's purely aesthetic just like what color you choose to paint your models. You might as well be asking for rules for having yellow helmets.

Some people don't want a simpler game, because being simple means it could lose out on some of the customisation it affords them. Making vehicles ignore armour facings was good for simplicity, but for some people, the simpler it got, the worse it was. Being simple isn't always good, because people have their preferences.

This is true, but I'm talking about rules bloat, not legitimate depth. Armor facings involved a lot of arguments, but they did add gameplay depth. A 5% difference in stat line does not, so those options should be consolidated.

 Peregrine wrote:

A significant portion of the playerbase like having options, both as pieces to be modelled, and as rules to use. Different configurations are favoured by different people, even if in your view they were "sub-optimal" - for example, back in 3rd or 4th edition, I'd run a Mortar HWS. At the time, you could safely argue they were not a good unit - guess range weapon (though playing Dwarfs in WHFB helped here), small blast template, doing bolter hits (from memory), and pinning something once in a blue moon - but they were fun for me to use. If you reduced my options to the "1 or 2 everyone takes" during that edition, you take that option away, as I doubt the vast majority of IG players were bothering with Mortars before 8th...

But mortars are exactly the kind of thing I'd keep! They genuinely fill a different role, not just +/- 5% more damage against certain targets if you do enough math optimization. The issue with redundancy is more like LC HWS vs. ML HWS: both of them are anti-tank weapons, just with a slight tradeoff of better stats vs. secondary (and rarely used and ineffective) frag mode. Most of the time one of them, depending on point costs, is going to be the obvious correct choice and the other is just a slightly weaker version of it. In 5th it was the dirt cheap ML, in 8th it's the superior firepower of the LC. From a gameplay point of view they both have the same role and the same experience outside of math optimization. So a simplified HWS might have three options: anti-tank (LC stat line), anti-infantry (HB stat line), and mortar (mortar stat line). All of the roles are maintained, just with less rules bloat.

But with your way, I can't have a combination-fire weapon (missile launcher, even IF the frag is underpowered, I've chosen it when it is flavourful or just flat out more useful for me). What about the Space Marine arsenal of heavy weapons?

Lascannon, long range single target
Multimelta, short range single target
Missile launcher, versatile multiple profiles
Heavy bolter, anti-infantry
Grav-cannon, anti-heavy infantry
Plasma cannon, versatile general profile

They all have niches and purposes, how do you trim that down?