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.

 insaniak wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

Not a GW model, and from a time before drop pods were even a part of the actual game. So an odd thing to criticise GW for...

True, I didn't realize it was from officially sponsored third party. However, drop pods were part of the game for a long time if you count Epic Armageddon.

 insaniak wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Likewise, you don't speak for everyone here. Please feel free to stop acting like you are. Unless you want to break out the red modtext and throw your weight around.

If you're going to pull the thread down to the 'I know you are, but what am I?' level of conversation, it's not going to be around for long.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Except the ML has always been a bad weapon essentially. Frag is bad and has always been bad (small blasts were always bad and honestly you can't argue otherwise) the Krak is only okay now, and in desperation were only ever taken for the Flakk option (which after more and more codices got AA options the Flakk ceased to be useful).

I can't speak to the current rules, but missile launchers were the best option for Devastators in 5th and 6th editions. My ML Long Fangs more than made their points back in most of my games.

They were a cheap choice but not a good one. As I recall with the 5th Edition Space Wolves, Long Fangs got them really super cheap, so it didn't matter how much worse than Lascannons they were. For regular Devastators though? Your memory is most faulty.

The ML either needs a serious rework or it should just be a Counts-As Lascannon at this point.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Likewise, you don't speak for everyone here. Please feel free to stop acting like you are. Unless you want to break out the red modtext and throw your weight around.

If you're going to pull the thread down to the 'I know you are, but what am I?' level of conversation, it's not going to be around for long.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Except the ML has always been a bad weapon essentially. Frag is bad and has always been bad (small blasts were always bad and honestly you can't argue otherwise) the Krak is only okay now, and in desperation were only ever taken for the Flakk option (which after more and more codices got AA options the Flakk ceased to be useful).

I can't speak to the current rules, but missile launchers were the best option for Devastators in 5th and 6th editions. My ML Long Fangs more than made their points back in most of my games.

They were a cheap choice but not a good one. As I recall with the 5th Edition Space Wolves, Long Fangs got them really super cheap, so it didn't matter how much worse than Lascannons they were. For regular Devastators though? Your memory is most faulty.

The ML either needs a serious rework or it should just be a Counts-As Lascannon at this point.

IIRC, long fangs were the best dev squad not because it was cheaper but because it had split fire option unlike any other heavy weapon squads in the game.

@Peregrine

I'm quite torn, to be honest. On the one hand, I agree with you that having, say, 10 melee weapons with only 2 of them actually being good is pointless rules bloat. For example, the current Haemonculus weapon options are:
Agoniser (Poison 4+, AP-2, D1)
Electrocorrosive Whip (Poison 4+, AP-2, D2)
Flesh Gauntlet (S3, AP-, D1, Causes a Mortal Wound on a 6+ to wound against non-vehicles)
Mindphase Gauntlet (S3, AP-, D2)
Scissorhand (Poison 4+, AP-1, D1, +1 attack)
Venom Blade (Poison 2+, AP-, D2)

In case it's not clear, the Electrocorrosive Whip is basically outright better than the others, and the cost difference is negligible.

I find this sort of thing a real shame - especially since many of the other weapons have great models. So in that regard, I can definitely see why you'd want to basically say 'use whatever model you want and have them all be Electrocorrosive Whips'. In fact, I think this is particularly fitting because you've got 6 melee weapons that all basically do the same thing, with varying degrees of competence. None of them are remotely anti-vehicle weapons, none have great AP, none do anything useful or interesting.

On the other hand, I find myself wondering whether this is something that could be fixed simply by better design. Do these weapons really need to be so similar in the first place? Couldn't the Mindphase Gauntlet have an actual effect (like it used to), rather than just doing 2 damage with no strength or AP - so that the Electrocorrosive Whip isn't objectively better?

What's more, while I can definitely see the appeal in using whatever you want to represent a melee weapon, I can also see the appeal in wanting different weapon models to actually have some meaning when it comes to in-game rules. It's one of the things that I find most infuriating about Dark Eldar - they have so many possibilities for conversions, but so little wargear that they can't do anything meaningful with them.

To be honest, I think I'm still leaning towards your idea. However, my suggestion would be that removing weapon rules entirely shouldn't be the first resort. I think the first thing should be to look at weapons that are currently too similar and see if it's possible to change them (without completely breaking flavour, obviously) to make them fulfil different roles or such. But if you run out of design space and still have multiple weapons fulfilling the same role, I could probably get behind merging them.

 Eldarsif wrote:

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.

I don't disagree. But then, just about every aspect of the DE Archon synergises horribly with his own army:
- He's a melee unit in a subfaction designed for ranged combat.
- In spite of being ostensibly a melee unit (at least, I'm assuming he's supposed to be a melee unit, given that the Blaster was relegated to the Index and his only remaining weapons are pistols), every single one of his melee weapons is absolute garbage.
- In spite of being the overall army leader, he's not allowed to support anything outside of Kabal - not even the 'mercenary' units.
- No allowance is made for his aura working in, into, or out of open-topped vehicles. So he's unable to actually support Kabal troops even if he's riding in the same transport as them.
- His aura doesn't do anything for his own Court, as their own ability overrides it.
- He has no option for Wings so is forced to use a transport if he wants to get anywhere.
- Because of our arse transport capacity, the Archon isn't allowed to share a Venom with any unit except the Court, and if he goes in a Raider then you're limited to a 9-man squad.
- Because our squad's special weapons are 1-per-5, having the Archon in a Raider prevents a Kabalite squad from taking a second special weapon - meaning that you're basically paying ~90pts to upgrade a BS3+ Blaster to a BS2+ Blaster.
- Oh and his Shadowfield can go suck on a plasmagun.

The Archon is basically a worse Canoness who inexplicably costs 25pts *more*.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
I'm not talking about model themeing, I'm talking about gameplay themeing
Okay, so you know how in fighters each character (usually) has a different moveset? Lets say we just remove all of that and just have them each have the same moveset. Keep the animations, keep the background, so they're still all "different" from each other lore wise but they all fight the same so that "you can't pick the wrong fighter". They're all different, until you actually start playing. The differences are superfical, and mean nothing.

That's a poor analogy. What we're criticizing is more like a fighting game that, instead of having 10 genuinely different characters that each have different sets of moves and different playing styles, promises LOOK WE HAVE 500 CHARACTERS ISN'T IT SO FORGING A NARRATIVE but delivers 10 different characters and 490 characters that are just minor variations on the first 10. Yeah, maybe you can point to some tiny difference like character A's punch attack being one frame faster while character B's punch attack has one pixel longer reach, but in the end those differences only matter to a tiny minority of hardcore optimizers and are just rules bloat. The game would be better off having those 10 distinct characters and a skin editor so you can choose a different hair color or whatever without having to have an entirely new character.

Not sure if it only really matters to a tiny minority. In street fighter, Ken and Ryu are very similar characters in move set with some noticeable difference for people who've played the game for a while. The differences mean nothing to someone who's just starting the game, but a part of playing any game is learning those differences and the tools are different for dealing with one v the other. While by your own logic Ken should just be a palette swap, I think most people would agree that would not make SF a better game.

If you want a different example, how about the different weapon tiers in Fire Emblem? They could have just made them be a linear upgrade from iron to steel to silver, but by making so that iron have an easier chance to hit vs Steel and silver having a lower durability than the other two gives the player a reason to continue using iron and steel even as the next tier of weapons become more available.

Sidegrades are not the same as redundant bloat.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
I'm not talking about model themeing, I'm talking about gameplay themeing
Okay, so you know how in fighters each character (usually) has a different moveset? Lets say we just remove all of that and just have them each have the same moveset. Keep the animations, keep the background, so they're still all "different" from each other lore wise but they all fight the same so that "you can't pick the wrong fighter". They're all different, until you actually start playing. The differences are superfical, and mean nothing.

That's a poor analogy. What we're criticizing is more like a fighting game that, instead of having 10 genuinely different characters that each have different sets of moves and different playing styles, promises LOOK WE HAVE 500 CHARACTERS ISN'T IT SO FORGING A NARRATIVE but delivers 10 different characters and 490 characters that are just minor variations on the first 10. Yeah, maybe you can point to some tiny difference like character A's punch attack being one frame faster while character B's punch attack has one pixel longer reach, but in the end those differences only matter to a tiny minority of hardcore optimizers and are just rules bloat. The game would be better off having those 10 distinct characters and a skin editor so you can choose a different hair color or whatever without having to have an entirely new character.

Not sure if it only really matters to a tiny minority. In street fighter, Ken and Ryu are very similar characters in move set with some noticeable difference for people who've played the game for a while. The differences mean nothing to someone who's just starting the game, but a part of playing any game is learning those differences and the tools are different for dealing with one v the other. While by your own logic Ken should just be a palette swap, I think most people would agree that would not make SF a better game.

If you want a different example, how about the different weapon tiers in Fire Emblem? They could have just made them be a linear upgrade from iron to steel to silver, but by making so that iron have an easier chance to hit vs Steel and silver having a lower durability than the other two gives the player a reason to continue using iron and steel even as the next tier of weapons become more available.

Except once you're at a certain Skill, those hit rates really don't matter. Then you'll likely have enough Gold that you can still spend on Silver weapons, to the point MAYBE you keep a single Steel weapon just in case you keep forgetting to update Inventory. I know I did that due to speeding through.

Also with how Awakening and Fates did the stupid pairing system, you can still get your hit rate easily raised. My complaints on those two games are a whole different topic.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Sidegrades are not the same as redundant bloat.

Indeed - like combi bolters and storm bolters would be redundant bloat for the sake of fluff.

 skchsan wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Sidegrades are not the same as redundant bloat.

Indeed - like combi bolters and storm bolters would be redundant bloat for the sake of fluff.

How are either redundant bloat? Both are straight upgrades to a bolt gun and are iconic and incredibly common options across the entire marine line.

HoundsofDemos wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Sidegrades are not the same as redundant bloat.

Indeed - like combi bolters and storm bolters would be redundant bloat for the sake of fluff.

How are either redundant bloat? Both are straight upgrades to a bolt gun and are iconic and incredibly common options across the entire marine line.

24" Range Rapid Fire 2 S4 AP0 D1 weapon.

Which gun am I describing?

 JNAProductions wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Sidegrades are not the same as redundant bloat.

Indeed - like combi bolters and storm bolters would be redundant bloat for the sake of fluff.

How are either redundant bloat? Both are straight upgrades to a bolt gun and are iconic and incredibly common options across the entire marine line.

24" Range Rapid Fire 2 S4 AP0 D1 weapon.

Which gun am I describing?

Both a storm bolter and combi bolter that isn't paired with a special weapon. Now that twin linked isn't a thing anymore I agree a straight combi bolter and storm bolter should be the same. I took the last post to be about deleting the combi special bolters.

That said, I liked that chaos and loyal marines had a slightly different weapon to represent that both are using similar but different equipment due to time and logistics.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
Not sure if it only really matters to a tiny minority. In street fighter, Ken and Ryu are very similar characters in move set with some noticeable difference for people who've played the game for a while. The differences mean nothing to someone who's just starting the game, but a part of playing any game is learning those differences and the tools are different for dealing with one v the other. While by your own logic Ken should just be a palette swap, I think most people would agree that would not make SF a better game.

But that's not the same thing.

Ken and Ryu (apparently, I don't play the game) have similar moves but have depth that comes out with experience. That's good design, and the only question mark would be why new players take so long to see the differences and whether that information could/should be presented in a more accessible way. And obviously removing that depth would be a bad thing.

With the 40k options it's the exact opposite. The newbie might think there are options, but the veteran player quickly learns that only 1-2 of them are viable and the rest might as well not exist (outside of a tiny minority deliberately making bad decisions to prove how "casual" they are). That's bad design, it's a case of false options that only add rules bloat. Dumping those options entirely leaves the same gameplay depth but reduces complexity, something that is especially important with the sheer size of 40k in its current state.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:
On the other hand, I find myself wondering whether this is something that could be fixed simply by better design. Do these weapons really need to be so similar in the first place? Couldn't the Mindphase Gauntlet have an actual effect (like it used to), rather than just doing 2 damage with no strength or AP - so that the Electrocorrosive Whip isn't objectively better?

But what would be the point? In a game as shallow as 40k the main weapon stat that has any meaning is kills per turn. Even if you can find a stat line or special rule that makes it more than just a strictly worse version of a different weapon is this special rule really going to change how you play the unit? It's still a melee threat that you're still going to deliver the same way, you're just changing the exact details of how you roll dice once you get into combat. It's making the mistake of starting from the assumption that you need at least X different weapons instead of assuming zero options and only adding options when there is a compelling reason that a particular option is interesting enough to include. That's a textbook example of rules bloat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Waaaghpower wrote:
Yeah, a lot of the arguments in here against variety seem to be along the lines of "Because it's poorly balanced, therefore it cannot ever be good and should be stripped out".

It's not just about balance, it's about redundancy. Set aside the stat lines for a moment and ask yourself what is the purpose of a devastator squad. It's a cheap heavy weapon platform that sacrifices everything else (mobility, toughness, etc) for getting four heavy weapons on the table as cheaply as possible. It's job is to sit back in your deployment zone, pick a target, and deliver shots to it as efficiently as possible. Taking a "decent at multiple things" weapon defeats this purpose because no matter what you're shooting at you're doing it inefficiently, and you're better off taking a specialist weapon and using it against the primary target. Anything that requires moving to get up close is bad because the unit has poor mobility, no ability to ignore the -1 BS penalty for moving, and poor durability if you're forced to get into range of counter attacks. So that leaves two possible roles depending your expected target type. Want to kill horde infantry? Take heavy bolters. Want to kill anything else? Take lascannons. Any other weapon is redundant, so you might as well just replace all those options with "anti-infantry devastator squad" and "anti-tank devastator squad".

Even if you improve balance you're just going to replace one of the existing options, not generate a new one. Say missile launchers become cheap enough again that their lower power relative to lascannons is acceptable. Now you've just removed lascannons from the game and still only have two roles and two viable weapons.

@peregrine so which one of the power weapon options stand out to you as the no-brainer? Axe/Sword/Maul? Why does the game have options for power lances when there hasn't been a model for it in ages?

 skchsan wrote:
@peregrine so which one of the power weapon options stand out to you as the no-brainer? Axe/Sword/Maul?

Don't know, don't care. All of them fill the same role of "kill more stuff if the unit gets into melee", none of them change how you play the unit. Which one is 5% more effective doesn't matter, we should go back to the 5th edition approach where they're all generic power weapons.

Why does the game have options for power lances when there hasn't been a model for it in ages?

No idea. It should just be a generic power weapon like the others.

(And do lances still exist? I know IG can't take them, and even the maul and axe are index-only.)

 skchsan wrote:
@peregrine so which one of the power weapon options stand out to you as the no-brainer? Axe/Sword/Maul? Why does the game have options for power lances when there hasn't been a model for it in ages?

Last edition, the Power Sword might as well have not existed and you basically just chose between the Maul and Axe. This edition it is between the Sword and Axe instead with the Maul being useless.

About Peregrin's abstraction for the sake of simpler rules,
some of us enjoy the detail and realism of a more immersive game.
We like to build and paint realistic terrain to use with wysiwyg models because of the realistic presentation.
Bloat in rules exists due poor implementation, for instance when as prior post pointed out some wargear options are not even options because they are outshined by obvious choices otherwise. But if these were well conceived options then there would be no bloat... Only options.
Imho the fix to bad game design is not removing game design from the equation. It is better game design.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
@peregrine so which one of the power weapon options stand out to you as the no-brainer? Axe/Sword/Maul? Why does the game have options for power lances when there hasn't been a model for it in ages?

Last edition, the Power Sword might as well have not existed and you basically just chose between the Maul and Axe. This edition it is between the Sword and Axe instead with the Maul being useless.

Axe is no-brainer anytime when you are able to pick it over the sword.

Yup, they are basically saying your mini's are only useful for the time we say they are.

Silver144 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
@peregrine so which one of the power weapon options stand out to you as the no-brainer? Axe/Sword/Maul? Why does the game have options for power lances when there hasn't been a model for it in ages?

Last edition, the Power Sword might as well have not existed and you basically just chose between the Maul and Axe. This edition it is between the Sword and Axe instead with the Maul being useless.

Axe is no-brainer anytime when you are able to pick it over the sword.

You can make a case for the sword, but Axe is a better TAC pick.

 jeff white wrote:
some of us enjoy the detail and realism of a more immersive game.

First of all, the idea that 40k is immersive and realistic is kind of funny. As long as IGOUGO exists, weapon ranges are laughably short, etc, 40k is not realistic. GW might as well embrace the abstraction and make a more playable game.

Second, having a playable game has to take priority over realism. Would 40k be much more realistic if weapon ranges were scaled correctly for 28mm? Yes. Would anyone be able to play a game that requires an entire football field for a playing space to accommodate 120" range bolters? No. Same thing with rules bloat options. Precise details like the difference in fighting styles between an axe and a sword might be appropriate for a game like Kill Team, where you have 5-10 models on the table at most, but it's out of place in a game where a titan can kill the entire squad in one shot from across the table. It just slows down the game without adding any meaningful strategy. Even if you make things perfectly balanced you're still balancing something that doesn't belong in 28mm Epic.

 Peregrine wrote:
Would anyone be able to play a game that requires an entire football field for a playing space to accommodate 120" range bolters?

Having longer weapon ranges doesn't actually require you to have a bigger table. You would just balance out the fact that most weapons are always in range in other ways - better implementation of cover rules being the most obvious.

 insaniak wrote:
Having longer weapon ranges doesn't actually require you to have a bigger table. You would just balance out the fact that most weapons are always in range in other ways - better implementation of cover rules being the most obvious.

So you're arguing for just removing range as an attribute and having LOS blocking be the only defense against getting shot? I suppose that fixes it from a mechanics point of view, but realism requires that you be able to have a battle on fairly open terrain and not just dense cities/jungles/etc.

If you're such a big fan of the abstraction provided by Epic, Peregrine, why not save everyone a bunch of grief and go play either Epic 40,000 or Epic : Armageddon instead of 40k?

 Dysartes wrote:
If you're such a big fan of the abstraction provided by Epic, Peregrine, why not save everyone a bunch of grief and go play either Epic 40,000 or Epic : Armageddon instead of 40k?

Because 28mm models are better. The real question here is why people are trying to treat 40k as a skirmish game when GW has already turned it into 28mm Epic.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
If you're such a big fan of the abstraction provided by Epic, Peregrine, why not save everyone a bunch of grief and go play either Epic 40,000 or Epic : Armageddon instead of 40k?

Because 28mm models are better. The real question here is why people are trying to treat 40k as a skirmish game when GW has already turned it into 28mm Epic.

That would be a question you'd need to direct to the design team, given they've written the system that way.

 Dysartes wrote:
That would be a question you'd need to direct to the design team, given they've written the system that way.

Apparently it's a question for this forum, because there's a thread discussing it. Or perhaps the real question is why you feel compelled to make zero-content posts complaining about how someone is participating in a discussion when you don't think they should, instead of having anything useful to say on the topic.

 Peregrine wrote:

So you're arguing for just removing range as an attribute and having LOS blocking be the only defense against getting shot?

I'm not arguing for it, no. It was your example. I was just pointing out that your claim that it would require a larger table wasn't actually accurate.

... but realism requires that you be able to have a battle on fairly open terrain and not just dense cities/jungles/etc.

Well, yes... but realism would also require that you not be fighting against demons and semi-intelligent fungus, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

 insaniak wrote:
I'm not arguing for it, no. It was your example. I was just pointing out that your claim that it would require a larger table wasn't actually accurate.

It is because the only alternative is to eliminate range entirely and require an unrealistic level of terrain and scenario restrictions for every single game. A 40k battle should not be fought on a 6x4 table, period, if realism is a goal. It isn't a reasonable scale for a 28mm game involving that many models (and tanks, aircraft, etc).

Now, of course you're free to discard realism as a goal and accept abstraction, but the claim was that we need realism in 40k even when it comes at the expense of improving how the rules function.

Well, yes... but realism would also require that you not be fighting against demons and semi-intelligent fungus, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

Lolwut? That's an awful argument and you know it. "Realism" in this context means accurately representing what exists in the "real" 40k universe. Demons and semi-intelligent fungus exist in 40k, so it's realistic to have them in a 40k game. Space marines firing bolt pistols that can barely reach from one end of a tank to the other is not what exists in the 40k fluff, it's a result of playing with 28mm models on a battlefield that is not 28mm scale.

I have always said that gw should make a rule set similar to epic 40000 with no war gear options justbdamage out put etc for units that competitive players could use. It would separate the traditional 40k players from this toxic desire for the ever elsusepive balance.

Andykp wrote:
It would separate the traditional 40k players from this toxic desire for the ever elsusepive balance.

Yeah, because making better rules is so incredibly toxic, how can anyone possibly have fun without the game being an unbalanced mess?

PS: balance benefits "casual" players more than competitive players. Casual players want everything to be viable so they don't have to worry about being limited in their list building choices if they want to have a fair chance of winning. Competitive players care much less if something is overpowered, they just take the overpowered thing and win with it.