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.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Take the Intercessor kit as an example - I think those drum mags look great but that modelling choice has a rules implication so I don't have any. Did we really need three different profiles for one gun with slightly different accessories? Removing two of those profiles and making the parts cosmetic would be an improvement, in my opinion.

Considering that unlike Tacticals, Intercessors are an unit that cannot be customised with heavy or special weapons, some choices for the base weapon is a good idea. However, you're right that currently it doesn't work, and it is difficult to make it work. The weapons look so similar, that it would be weird if they were drastically different. Stalkers getting sniper as standard would fix them and give them a clear role, but it is hard to differentiate the rapid fire and auto without one of them just becoming clearly better choice. Then again, that is necessarily not a problem. Perhaps auto bolt rifle should become a more expensive elite bolt rifle with more punch; Sternguard equivalent of the Primaris.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

There's not a point to buff a TAC weapon though where it's not going to outshine other choices in some regard. It simply doesn't work and consolidation for the ML is necessary for the models to be useful.

Of course it can work. If you don't list tailor TAC weapon is very valuable. And points exist for a reason, you can always adjust them.

I also wasn't talking about removing the Multi-Melta weapon but making an example of how it is not a choice for a particular unit (Devastators) in the most favorable conditions (Skyhammer Formation), even though it's an option. If it was removed from Devastators, nobody bats an eye because it wasn't taken regardless.

But it could work, and I think it should work. Currently both drop pods and multimeltas are bad. However, conceptually drop podding melta devastators are a perfectly valid idea, and rules could be written so that it would be viable.

 Crimson wrote:

Considering that unlike Tacticals, Intercessors are an unit that cannot be customised with heavy or special weapons, some choices for the base weapon is a good idea.

Why? What does the game gain from having the three slightly different profiles for the base guns on this squad?

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Considering that unlike Tacticals, Intercessors are an unit that cannot be customised with heavy or special weapons, some choices for the base weapon is a good idea.

Why? What does the game gain from having the three slightly different profiles for the base guns on this squad?

A unit that is optimised for three different types of target?

 Crimson wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Take the Intercessor kit as an example - I think those drum mags look great but that modelling choice has a rules implication so I don't have any. Did we really need three different profiles for one gun with slightly different accessories? Removing two of those profiles and making the parts cosmetic would be an improvement, in my opinion.

Considering that unlike Tacticals, Intercessors are an unit that cannot be customised with heavy or special weapons, some choices for the base weapon is a good idea. However, you're right that currently it doesn't work, and it is difficult to make it work. The weapons look so similar, that it would be weird if they were drastically different. Stalkers getting sniper as standard would fix them and give them a clear role, but it is hard to differentiate the rapid fire and auto without one of them just becoming clearly better choice. Then again, that is necessarily not a problem. Perhaps auto bolt rifle should become a more expensive elite bolt rifle with more punch; Sternguard equivalent of the Primaris.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

There's not a point to buff a TAC weapon though where it's not going to outshine other choices in some regard. It simply doesn't work and consolidation for the ML is necessary for the models to be useful.

Of course it can work. If you don't list tailor TAC weapon is very valuable. And points exist for a reason, you can always adjust them.

I also wasn't talking about removing the Multi-Melta weapon but making an example of how it is not a choice for a particular unit (Devastators) in the most favorable conditions (Skyhammer Formation), even though it's an option. If it was removed from Devastators, nobody bats an eye because it wasn't taken regardless.

But it could work, and I think it should work. Currently both drop pods and multimeltas are bad. However, conceptually drop podding melta devastators are a perfectly valid idea, and rules could be written so that it would be viable.

TAC weapons don't work for TAC armies. It never has, and it never will.

Also of course current Drop Pods and Multi-Melta Devastators are bad. However, my point is that their best performance (Skyhammer) was not good at all. So why does it matter they have the option when it isn't taken anyway?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Considering that unlike Tacticals, Intercessors are an unit that cannot be customised with heavy or special weapons, some choices for the base weapon is a good idea.

Why? What does the game gain from having the three slightly different profiles for the base guns on this squad?

A unit that is optimised for three different types of target?

Yep. It is a good thing if there is some customisability in your basic troops, as they're your most numerous units so them all being identical is tactically boring. The problem is that currently this is not what they do, the variant bolt rifles do not have different roles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

TAC weapons don't work for TAC armies. It never has, and it never will.

Right.That's why everyone is taking meltas and flamers over plasma. No, wait, they aren't.

Also of course current Drop Pods and Multi-Melta Devastators are bad. However, my point is that their best performance (Skyhammer) was not good at all. So why does it matter they have the option when it isn't taken anyway?

Presumably some people take them. And it could and should work.

 Crimson wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Considering that unlike Tacticals, Intercessors are an unit that cannot be customised with heavy or special weapons, some choices for the base weapon is a good idea.

Why? What does the game gain from having the three slightly different profiles for the base guns on this squad?

A unit that is optimised for three different types of target?

Yep. It is a good thing if there is some customisability in your basic troops, as they're your most numerous units so them all being identical is tactically boring. The problem is that currently this is not what they do, the variant bolt rifles do not have different roles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

TAC weapons don't work for TAC armies. It never has, and it never will.

Right.That's why everyone is taking meltas and flamers over plasma. No, wait, they aren't.

Also of course current Drop Pods and Multi-Melta Devastators are bad. However, my point is that their best performance (Skyhammer) was not good at all. So why does it matter they have the option when it isn't taken anyway?

Presumably some people take them. And it could and should work.

People aren't taking Flamers because Flamers aren't good at anything for the price, and you're lying to yourself if you say otherwise. As well, should Plasma had stayed at 13 (like it should have before this Chapter Approved) and Melta get that nice new 14 point cost instead thanks to Chapter Approved, it would actually be more fair and maybe the choices matter. Plasma gets the niche of being kinda universal but focuses on hitting those 2 wound models and higher armor saves, and Melta is more powerful for units with a lot of wounds.
Of course making Plasma 11 killed that potential didn't it? It also didn't help GW throws around Invul saves like candy and can't price them correctly. Storm Shields being only 2 points proves that.

Also you can say "presumably", but the issue there is other Devastator loadouts were taken. Even with the Lascannon being as blech as it was in 7th, they got taken in Gladius because you could load them in a free Rhino as a bunker to fire from. The ML was done as the same for people that couldn't do math on that ghastly weapon. Plasma Cannons were cheap enough at 15 points that they were a mediocre choice. Grav was of course king.

The Multi-Melta served no purpose in a Devastator squad ever. If you removed the option, nobody would care besides the people saying "I wanted to do it at some point!!!".

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

People aren't taking Flamers because Flamers aren't good at anything for the price, and you're lying to yourself if you say otherwise. As well, should Plasma had stayed at 13 (like it should have before this Chapter Approved) and Melta get that nice new 14 point cost instead thanks to Chapter Approved, it would actually be more fair and maybe the choices matter. Plasma gets the niche of being kinda universal but focuses on hitting those 2 wound models and higher armor saves, and Melta is more powerful for units with a lot of wounds.
Of course making Plasma 11 killed that potential didn't it? It also didn't help GW throws around Invul saves like candy and can't price them correctly. Storm Shields being only 2 points proves that.

Also you can say "presumably", but the issue there is other Devastator loadouts were taken. Even with the Lascannon being as blech as it was in 7th, they got taken in Gladius because you could load them in a free Rhino as a bunker to fire from. The ML was done as the same for people that couldn't do math on that ghastly weapon. Plasma Cannons were cheap enough at 15 points that they were a mediocre choice. Grav was of course king.

The Multi-Melta served no purpose in a Devastator squad ever. If you removed the option, nobody would care besides the people saying "I wanted to do it at some point!!!".

You're just telling me how thing are. I know this. It doesn't mean one couldn't improve them. There is no fundamental reason why missile launchers or multimeltas couldn't work, they both have their distinct roles. You would be a terrible game designer if your solution for things not working would be to just delete them instead of trying to come up a way to make them work. Should flamers be deleted too?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Considering that unlike Tacticals, Intercessors are an unit that cannot be customised with heavy or special weapons, some choices for the base weapon is a good idea.

Why? What does the game gain from having the three slightly different profiles for the base guns on this squad?

A unit that is optimised for three different types of target?

That would require three significantly different profiles.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

That would require three significantly different profiles.

Yes. And perhaps a better solution would be to try to alter the rules so that each variant has a purpose, rather than remove the options altogether.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Except in 40k you can minimize randomness too via know which units are less likely to be swingy and more likely to be consistently good in their performance. That's the same as deck management. Anything less you say you can't mitigate is the same as not being prepared for an opponent's side deck or not being able to control your matchup.

Sorry, but by your definition, there can be no such thing as a competitive TCG. No tabletop wargame can be competitive either, and people do think highly of those Privateer Press ones (though apparently the balance has gone down the last few years, but otherwise they've done a not-so-terrible job).

To me, that's just a bad excuse on your end to defend bad balance.

Yes, you are correct. By my definition, there can be no such thing as a pure competitive TCG, unless maybe if the players were allowed to arrange their decks beforehand.
Note that I'm not saying that "Competitive" and "Balanced" or "Fair" are the same thing. 8th edition 40k, for example, is vastly more balanced and fair than 7th edition 40k. A unit can still be overpowered or underpowered, because the randomness doesn't mean that a unit's average damage of a bad unit might sometimes become good.

I prefer Warhammer 40k because the randomness makes the game more reactive in a close game. The ideal is that when two players have lists of similar strength, the victor will usually be determined by who can react to good or bad luck more effectively, who knows when to take risks and when to play it safe. That's where balance comes in - You have to have two lists of similar strength. (For example: Pre-codex, shooty orks were both very random and overcosted. Post-codex, shooty orks are still very random, but they're no longer overcosted. Meanwhile, an army like Grey Knights is pretty reliable, but with the exception of a couple units it's reliably going to underperform.)

There are degrees of competitiveness. Something like Magic: The Gathering is much more competitive than Warhammer 40k, but I prefer Warhammer 40k.

I really do not think that a definition of 'a competitive game' which requires total absence of randomness is a reasonable one.

 Crimson wrote:
I really do not think that a definition of 'a competitive game' which requires total absence of randomness is a reasonable one.

I mean, that's fair if you disagree with my definition, I included the definition I'm operating under so we would all know what I meant.
To briefly defend my definition, Google presents this definition for "Competing":
"Strive to gain or win something by defeating or establishing superiority over others who are trying to do the same."

In my opinion, establishing superiority doesn't include establishing superior luck. A purely competitive game, then, would be one completely absent of randomness. (While a game with a small amount of randomness would still be mostly competitive, and a game with a large amount of randomness would still be a little bit competitive.)

 Crimson wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

That would require three significantly different profiles.

Yes. And perhaps a better solution would be to try to alter the rules so that each variant has a purpose, rather than remove the options altogether.

Which still creates a situation where crunch decisions drive cosmetic decisions and that's assuming that all three are actually balanced and we don't end up with the same situation that we always have where one is obviously and substantially better than the others.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Which still creates a situation where crunch decisions drive cosmetic decisions and that's assuming that all three are actually balanced and we don't end up with the same situation that we always have where one is obviously and substantially better than the others.

But if we are afraid of options existing creating a situation where one is superior, then ultimately we need to remove all options. If every time something doesn't instantly work, we get rid of it, there's will be nothing left.

Also, sometimes it is OK for some weapons to be 'better' than others, as long as they're properly costed.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I don't think the drum mag would be an issue, so long as you took the appropriate scope for the gun you wanted. Drum mag and stalker sight? I'll assume it's a stalker, and if you tell me otherwise, I'll be cool with it.

Hell, I don't think I'd mind you proxying. I just don't want the option taken away from me to play my plasma cannons AS plasma cannons, and not be forced to play them as lascannons because lascannons are attractive now.

I think it's exactly the same thing - why not just combine the imperial heavy AT weapons into a single profile? Then you can have plasma cannons or lascannons entirely based on which you think looks best.

What does the game actually lose at that point and is the difference between them worth representing with different profiles?

This is like the WW2 games that insist on having different profiles for different versions of the Enfield/SMLE when in reality all of the bolt action infantry rifles in use were pretty much interchangeable.

Because neither a Plasma Cannon nor a Missile Launcher is an AT Weapon?

A Plasma Cannon is a heavy infantry killer, a Missile launcher is a multi role weapon - Presently it doesn't do terribly well at it's secondary role, but it's not meant to. It's meant to be worse than a heavy bolter at infantry, and worse than a lascannon against tanks, which it's stats perfectly mimic. A missile launcher can kill six, yes _Six_ Genestealers in one shot. A Lascannon can kill one. Is it likely? No. But in a situation where I'd like to kill six genestealers in a turn, I know which weapon I'd rather have. Incidentally, it also gives you access to the Flakk missile, something else a Lascannon does not do.

And if you're using Plasma Cannons as your primary Anti-Tank, you're doing it wrong. Even if you're a Dark Angel. That isn't their intended role, and consolodating their profiles is madness.

Just how stripped down do you want this game? Should we merge all the Space Marine Units down, so the entire Codex consists of Generic Marines, Generic HQ Choice, Generic Walker, Generic Transport, and Generic Tank? Each armed with Generic Small Arms or Generic AT?

I've had my moments of frustration with what GW does with their rules set at times. [Flamers hitting flyers and exploding plasmaguns at night being key examples] but I can't imagine doing anything other than closing such a bland book in disgust.
40k lives and dies on it's _Character_ alone. Removing that from the game leaves and empty shell that can, and should be filled by anything _anything_ else. GW writers write awful, awful rules, and they're pretty bad at balence. But they can write character. Take that out the game, and this really is just a terrible sad mess propped up by some occasionally stunning models, and the will and the skill that some people chose to put into painting them.

Honestly I'll all for for consolidation of a lot of the Marine codices (the Angels, Renegades, Vanilla) into the same codex for easier balance. Heck, I'm looking for ways to do the same for Space Wolves too (a much more gargantuan task but likely more rewarding).

I've no issue with that what so ever. I've often complained about an excess of _Factions_ within Warhammer. What I'm against is the remaining factions becoming bland and generic. I want a diverse Codex Spacemarines. Not 12 almost identical but equally bland space marine codexes. In an ideal world I'd advocate for one codex that could represent all the chapters. But then GW would sell less books.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:1. And look how long it takes for Grunts to kill Master Chief just standing there even in Legendary.
Your argument would work more if the system wasn't IGOUGO. Even another system doesn't work for the pathetic offense of a lot of units, actually. The math proves it.

Funnily enough, IGOUGO is a system by which the game is played. What, do you also think that because 40k uses dice, it's not true to the lore, because there shouldn't be chance? You'd rather the game turn into some kind of "this unit guarentees to do 15 points of damage on that unit" game? No luck, no chance?

...throw the dice and just make the pewpew noises.

That's exactly what I do. It's fun. And I'll continue doing it, if you please.

2. Funny. I'm told the ML launches a projectile and it really hurts the target. I'm told the Lascannon shoots a giant laser that really hurts the target. Seeing as Frag might as well not exist, consolidation for the ML Krak and LC shot works fine for being anti-tank weapons.
Well that was easy.

You know as well as I do that the missile fires a *variety* of projectiles, that hurt specific targets.

The only reason frag "might as well not exist" is because it's not powerful enough, or priced right, to be considered mathematically acceptable. Unfortunately, if we had someone as lazy as you rebalancing 40k, we'd miss out on frag ever becoming better, because as we should apparently all know, if it's broken, throw it away and don't try to fix it.

Also Bolters and Pulse rifles and such lost any armor penetrating power, so no they don't fit the lore now. Approximate strength is only met if you ignore the lore, which I thought you didn't do with your former complaint about how consolidating the ML and LC stats would be bad.

And I think bolters and pulse rifles should have extra AP. But I'm not advocating scrapping them because they don't. I would rather fix them.
However, you do miss the even more basic point - bolters are stronger than lasguns. Which they tangibly are.

3. If something cannot be a proper platform even in the most favorable circumstances (Multi-Melta for Skyhammer Formation Devastators), the option might as well not exist. Same thing for 4 of the current ML performing less than 2 Lascannons and 2 Heavy Bolters against almost all targets. The 5 point cut to the ML still didn't help it. I suppose that they could maybe subtract 1 or 2 more points, but math is hard and it would be hard for someone to figure out if they went over in points and had to ask for permission to run more stuff.

Dude, if you need to rely on arguments not even presented in this thread, I think that speaks a lot for how strongly you have faith in your own points.

But yes, I'm glad you finally realise that your precious points would actually have a purpose here! After all, it's not like that's what you've been defending in these other threads you bring up.

4. Look at the Loota and Flash Gitz kits again, and say with a straight face all those weapons could perform the same.
That's not even a matter of being uniform. One of the Flash Gitz on the website has a darn Plasma Cannon!

They're Orks. I can't say anything about them with a straight face because of all the teef.
But jokes aside, they're Orks. They will be whatever they can be. Sure, it LOOKS like a plasma cannon, but it's been tinkered with so much it's actually not.

5. Rules bloat doesn't just refer to how many books you carry and you know that.

It's the bit that matters to me. I don't think 8th is particularly bloaty right now anyways.

Also your feelings towards the rest of the game are relevant as it establishes how you construct your beliefs. It's relevant and should be pointed out.

But why should my argument at face value not be argument in it's own right? If you need to go elsewhere to try and make your claims, instead of being able to rely on what you're being shown here, that's not really very strong conviction.

6. Then I want you, once again with a straight face, say that the current Tactical Marine is fine as is and should be 20 points for everything to fit the fluff more, and that this would be more fun.

I'm saying with a straight face that I think Tactical Marines are fine, and seeing as I don't use points, I don't know how that would affect me. I use Power Level, but I think 5 right now, 6 if you want to make it more expensive, is fine.

7. Core mechanics made the small blast bad on top of the prohibitive cost of the ML, and I already pointed out how you didn't like anything not being a multiple of 5 which you demonstrated in a different thread. 18 point ML's would be too hard to add! Might have to ask for extra points from your opponent!

If you make this kind of jab again, I'm using the yellow triangle. It's not funny, and frankly just makes me lose any kind of faith in debating with you.
You could fix the core mechanics, if that's what's the issue is.

OR we can just admit that the ML has always been bad outside super specific instances (Long Fangs), and consolidate them into the Lascannon profile, ergo giving those models new life on the tabletop. Nobody uses the Frag profile anyway and the Flakk Strategem doesn't make for a good weapon, so nothing is missed. That's several problems solved in one go.

If frag was buffed or the missile made cheaper, then it's also fixed. Taking the lazy solution isn't good here, in my opinion.

8. Based on the fact they have rules where they can't stop and have a hard to hit rule due to their speed and being REALLY high up in the air, it is safe to assume a 8" Flamer shouldn't be hitting it mechanically.

They can still fly low to the ground and move fast??

I also came up with that pathetic excuse for sneaky dudes making Plasma explode more. It isn't a good excuse though and needed to be rewritten to make more sense.

Why do you want to rewrite this, but can't be bothered to rewrite the rules for underperforming weapons?

9. The Space Marine and Fire Warrior aren't tougher than a Guardsman due to points, so you're also just wrong on this account.

Sorry? A single Space Marine is toughness 4. A guardsman is toughness 3.
If points are an issue, change the points - and while you're at it, change them for the frag missile too.

10. And on the tabletop units can due stuff due to faith. So why is that something properly represented but not Eldar dodging Lasguns?

In the same way everyone doesn't dodge lasguns - because armour save, or invulnerable if you're quick enough to get one. Eldar apparently aren't, but Harlequins are.

11. As long as you're in denial and make excuses for their rules development team, sure you can get all you want out of the game. You're stopping the game from actually growing though.

At least I'm not trying to shrink it.

Plus, that "growing"? That's growing in YOUR preferred way. If I wanted it to grow more in MY way, you'd complain too.

Scott-S6 wrote:There is a balance required though - at the moment lots of options for character are essentially eliminated via being drastically worse than other options. Consolidating the crunch opens up modelling options.

As well as reducing variety in the game. I think I'd actually agree that redundancy is bad. The issue is how to fix it.
My way of fixing things is to make sure, either through costing, or through changing stats by a minimal amount, that everything is WORTH taking. If we're assuming that aesthetic values aren't to be considered here (purely for this one argument), I still maintain that having more variety is better. Yes, I've had people take that argument to the extreme of having a seperate stat for every sub-type of boltgun (Godwyn, De'az, etc etc), but I've only seen the extreme of the other argument mentioned once - that being we just make every unit a generic one - so every faction has "generic infantry" "generic heavy infantry" "generic transport" "generic walker" etc etc for "balance".

Suffice to say, taking things to the extremes are ridiculous.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:People aren't taking Flamers because Flamers aren't good at anything for the price, and you're lying to yourself if you say otherwise. As well, should Plasma had stayed at 13 (like it should have before this Chapter Approved) and Melta get that nice new 14 point cost instead thanks to Chapter Approved, it would actually be more fair and maybe the choices matter. Plasma gets the niche of being kinda universal but focuses on hitting those 2 wound models and higher armor saves, and Melta is more powerful for units with a lot of wounds.
Of course making Plasma 11 killed that potential didn't it? It also didn't help GW throws around Invul saves like candy and can't price them correctly. Storm Shields being only 2 points proves that.

Underlined every single time you supported my exact argument.
It's not about the weapons being redundant. It's about them being costed badly. If they were costed better, then they would no longer be redundant.
Taking the easy way out means cutting out a lot of fun options that people like. If the hypothetical person taking notes here were listening, I would tell them to not take the easy way, and balance the points. That's what they're there for, isn't it?

Also you can say "presumably", but the issue there is other Devastator loadouts were taken. Even with the Lascannon being as blech as it was in 7th, they got taken in Gladius because you could load them in a free Rhino as a bunker to fire from. The ML was done as the same for people that couldn't do math on that ghastly weapon. Plasma Cannons were cheap enough at 15 points that they were a mediocre choice. Grav was of course king.
The Multi-Melta served no purpose in a Devastator squad ever. If you removed the option, nobody would care besides the people saying "I wanted to do it at some point!!!".

Worked well for close range DEDICATED anti-vehicle destruction. I preferred and still prefer using multis over lascannons.

Crimson wrote:But if we are afraid of options existing creating a situation where one is superior, then ultimately we need to remove all options. If every time something doesn't instantly work, we get rid of it, there's will be nothing left.

Also, sometimes it is OK for some weapons to be 'better' than others, as long as they're properly costed.

Exactly. That's why they have a cost. If not, then - well, we'd be playing Power Level. And some of us aren't keen on that.

 vipoid wrote:
I think the issue is that the base Archon currently serves no purpose.

Well, his purpose is to babysit the Ravagers. It's a boring purpose but the most explicit purpose in the codex currently considering how he was designed.

Although, he is a fun beatstick in 500 point games. Far from the best one, but he can be fun.

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

People aren't taking Flamers because Flamers aren't good at anything for the price, and you're lying to yourself if you say otherwise. As well, should Plasma had stayed at 13 (like it should have before this Chapter Approved) and Melta get that nice new 14 point cost instead thanks to Chapter Approved, it would actually be more fair and maybe the choices matter. Plasma gets the niche of being kinda universal but focuses on hitting those 2 wound models and higher armor saves, and Melta is more powerful for units with a lot of wounds.
Of course making Plasma 11 killed that potential didn't it? It also didn't help GW throws around Invul saves like candy and can't price them correctly. Storm Shields being only 2 points proves that.

Also you can say "presumably", but the issue there is other Devastator loadouts were taken. Even with the Lascannon being as blech as it was in 7th, they got taken in Gladius because you could load them in a free Rhino as a bunker to fire from. The ML was done as the same for people that couldn't do math on that ghastly weapon. Plasma Cannons were cheap enough at 15 points that they were a mediocre choice. Grav was of course king.

The Multi-Melta served no purpose in a Devastator squad ever. If you removed the option, nobody would care besides the people saying "I wanted to do it at some point!!!".

You're just telling me how thing are. I know this. It doesn't mean one couldn't improve them. There is no fundamental reason why missile launchers or multimeltas couldn't work, they both have their distinct roles. You would be a terrible game designer if your solution for things not working would be to just delete them instead of trying to come up a way to make them work. Should flamers be deleted too?

It's like you can't coherently understand my posts. Here's a breakdown of what was discussed so far.

Multi-Meltas serve no purpose in a Devastator squad. Deleting that entry from them won't harm anyone and nobody will notice.

Flamers have a theoretical purpose. They suck at it though. Sure you would fix that.

The ML, however, serves no purpose and hasn't had purpose for many editions, due to being terrible at TAC and expensive and the Flakk Strategem not giving enough distinction. It can be consolidated into having the same profile as the Lascannon in order to alleviate the issues of not getting use of ML models.

Does this flow correctly to you?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Waaaghpower wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Except in 40k you can minimize randomness too via know which units are less likely to be swingy and more likely to be consistently good in their performance. That's the same as deck management. Anything less you say you can't mitigate is the same as not being prepared for an opponent's side deck or not being able to control your matchup.

Sorry, but by your definition, there can be no such thing as a competitive TCG. No tabletop wargame can be competitive either, and people do think highly of those Privateer Press ones (though apparently the balance has gone down the last few years, but otherwise they've done a not-so-terrible job).

To me, that's just a bad excuse on your end to defend bad balance.

Yes, you are correct. By my definition, there can be no such thing as a pure competitive TCG, unless maybe if the players were allowed to arrange their decks beforehand.

So are you going to tell the MtG players that it isn't a competitive game because of randomness? Just because it's MORE competitive than 40k doesn mean it's competitive at all.

Let me know how it goes. I know you won't do it though because it's a bad excuse. It's also an excuse that has lead to crap balance of several units and years of 40k.

 Crimson wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Which still creates a situation where crunch decisions drive cosmetic decisions and that's assuming that all three are actually balanced and we don't end up with the same situation that we always have where one is obviously and substantially better than the others.

But if we are afraid of options existing creating a situation where one is superior, then ultimately we need to remove all options. If every time something doesn't instantly work, we get rid of it, there's will be nothing left.

Also, sometimes it is OK for some weapons to be 'better' than others, as long as they're properly costed.

That's exactly the point that's being made - the completely excessive number of options leads to situations where many of those options are pointless. Substantially reducing the number of options increases the possibility of having more of those options actually be viable.

And obviously things can be better or worse if they're costed correctly - that's so obvious I have no idea why you felt the need to point it out. At the moment we have options that are so lacking in utility that they wouldn't be taken at any points cost. I might take flamers if they were zero points but even then it's a special weapon slot wasted, it would literally only be taken on minimum cost filler squads.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
It's like you can't coherently understand my posts. Here's a breakdown of what was discussed so far.

Multi-Meltas serve no purpose in a Devastator squad. Deleting that entry from them won't harm anyone and nobody will notice.

Flamers have a theoretical purpose. They suck at it though. Sure you would fix that.

The ML, however, serves no purpose and hasn't had purpose for many editions, due to being terrible at TAC and expensive and the Flakk Strategem not giving enough distinction. It can be consolidated into having the same profile as the Lascannon in order to alleviate the issues of not getting use of ML models.

Does this flow correctly to you?

I can understand perfectly fine that you're repeating how things are and are unable to consider solutions.

 Eldarsif wrote:

Well, his purpose is to babysit the Ravagers. It's a boring purpose but the most explicit purpose in the codex currently considering how he was designed.

Except that that clearly isn't his intended purpose. It just happens to be the only thing he's remotely good at (or, more accurately, the thing he's the least bad at) because his design is so appallingly bad.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

That's exactly the point that's being made - the completely excessive number of options leads to situations where many of those options are pointless. Substantially reducing the number of options increases the possibility of having more of those options actually be viable.

You were talking about removing options from a unit that had three. There has been a lot of complaints about Primaris Marines, but before this thread I hadn't heard one about them having too many gear options!

And obviously things can be better or worse if they're costed correctly - that's so obvious I have no idea why you felt the need to point it out.

Apparently it was not obvious to you. Otherwise you wouldn't be clamouring for removing the 'worse' options but would suggest reducing their price instead.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

It's like you can't coherently understand my posts. Here's a breakdown of what was discussed so far.

Multi-Meltas serve no purpose in a Devastator squad. Deleting that entry from them won't harm anyone and nobody will notice.

Flamers have a theoretical purpose. They suck at it though. Sure you would fix that.

The ML, however, serves no purpose and hasn't had purpose for many editions, due to being terrible at TAC and expensive and the Flakk Strategem not giving enough distinction. It can be consolidated into having the same profile as the Lascannon in order to alleviate the issues of not getting use of ML models.

Does this flow correctly to you?

You - These weapons have no purpose, and should be deleted.
Him - Instead of deleting them, they could be fixed so that they do have a purpose
You - No, you're not understanding me! They don't have a purpose, so they should be removed!


He understands you just fine. He's simply proposing a different solution to deleting those options from the game.

1. And IGOUGO is a terrible system overall.
Also leaving so many things to random dice rolls IS bad for the game, and several profiles prove that. Plasma Guns prove to be consistent than Melta Guns. Disintigrators are mathematically better than Dark Lances. Reaper Launchers have a flat damage so you can optimize targets.
2. Go play with rocks then if you have no interest in the health of a game. People with your attitude is what leads to the laziness of GW as you defend their crap.
I'm the last person to accuse people of being white knights for defending GW, but you fit the definition to a tee.
3. Frags haven't been good the entirety of several editions. Even in a house rule system for better placement of small blasts, the frag missile was bad. It's still bad now because everyone gets a save against it, and has random shots.
So it isn't a matter of laziness, which is a funny accusation from someone that says balance isn't fun and is bad. It's a matter of the ML never fulfilling a purpose. Consolidation of stats is better for ML models so they have continued use.
4. Bolters aren't stronger than Lasguns for the points paid, so you're wrong. You're only ever looking at individual models and thinking "this is fine". You don't bother going beyond that because you go pewpew.
You might think I would be a terrible designer, but you're proving by fact you would be far worse than many of the people in this forum.
5. I refer to your trouble with adding numbers to make a list because it shows an inability to go into depth on the very clear issues in the game. Anyone that defends Power Level isn't exactly the brightest mind to discuss these things with, after all.
6. And how do you know that Plasma Gun has been tinkered with that much? I thought you wanted to play WYSIWYG. It's almost as though the consolidated profile for the Flash Gitz guns makes for better models and more creative freedom!
7. It's because it shows immaturity in those arguments, which honestly have little merit due to the little dedication you have to understanding the game.
Someone can agree with me Trump is a bad president, but if their reason is that he's ugly rather than the silly things he's done in office I would dismiss that person as someone not smart.
8. Except Power Level is a bad system (to the point I laughed and thought GW was making a joke), and anyone defending it should feel bad and reevaluate themselves. Adding ONE Company Vet to the original two dudes increases the cost by how much again? Granularity is a good thing for a reason.
9. It isn't a jab at you. You said adding things not in multiples of five was hard in another thread and makes creating armies super difficult. Threatening me with the "yellow triangle" simply shows you're unable to handle people who disagree with you and point out things you said in other threads. I like making things consistent.
Creating core mechanics to better support small blasts still didn't help the Frag round. It might as well not have existed. So who cares you don't use that round? It's useless and has always been useless. Just delete the entry and there isn't an issue.
10. Once again, due to you not looking into the game further than what's immediately in front of you, of course you just see "Marine is T4 3+ Infantry is T3 5+ so Marine is tougher". You don't care about the real balancing of options though because narrative, remember?
Why don't we make the Tactical Marine squad a PL of 15? They're supposed to be super rare, right? That's supposed to be fun, right?
11. No, regular Eldar are supposed to be able to dodge Lasguns too, not just Harlequins. So that's fluff not properly represented. Eldar should have a natural -1 to hit and Altaioc makes that a total of -2.
Fluff is more important than crunch because that's more fun.
12. Once again, the Flash Gitz and Lootas models prove your point about less variety incorrect. OR is it you want their individual weapons to have separate stats?
13. That doesn't prove any of your points as the ML doesn't have a point to it existing like it does compared to the Melta/Flamer/Plasma trio. I was also referring to how removing the Multi-Melta as an option for Devastators wouldn't matter because it wasn't a good option even a formation that would be perfect for it.
14. Except Multi-Melta Devastators didn't work for that. Saying you prefer it like that means jack due to mathematical performance. I don't care if you prefer a bad option. You defending said bad option is a different story though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

It's like you can't coherently understand my posts. Here's a breakdown of what was discussed so far.

Multi-Meltas serve no purpose in a Devastator squad. Deleting that entry from them won't harm anyone and nobody will notice.

Flamers have a theoretical purpose. They suck at it though. Sure you would fix that.

The ML, however, serves no purpose and hasn't had purpose for many editions, due to being terrible at TAC and expensive and the Flakk Strategem not giving enough distinction. It can be consolidated into having the same profile as the Lascannon in order to alleviate the issues of not getting use of ML models.

Does this flow correctly to you?

You - These weapons have no purpose, and should be deleted.
Him - Instead of deleting them, they could be fixed so that they do have a purpose
You - No, you're not understanding me! They don't have a purpose, so they should be removed!


He understands you just fine. He's simply proposing a different solution to deleting those options from the game.

There isn't a solution outside consolidation though that makes sense. The ML is basically never good, simple as that. Consolidation into the Lascannon stat line would fix those models as long as the Lascannon isn't terrible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
It's like you can't coherently understand my posts. Here's a breakdown of what was discussed so far.

Multi-Meltas serve no purpose in a Devastator squad. Deleting that entry from them won't harm anyone and nobody will notice.

Flamers have a theoretical purpose. They suck at it though. Sure you would fix that.

The ML, however, serves no purpose and hasn't had purpose for many editions, due to being terrible at TAC and expensive and the Flakk Strategem not giving enough distinction. It can be consolidated into having the same profile as the Lascannon in order to alleviate the issues of not getting use of ML models.

Does this flow correctly to you?

I can understand perfectly fine that you're repeating how things are and are unable to consider solutions.

I did consider solutions. Consolidation is simply the best one for continued balance and consistency.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

That's exactly the point that's being made - the completely excessive number of options leads to situations where many of those options are pointless. Substantially reducing the number of options increases the possibility of having more of those options actually be viable.

You were talking about removing options from a unit that had three. There has been a lot of complaints about Primaris Marines, but before this thread I hadn't heard one about them having too many gear options!

And obviously things can be better or worse if they're costed correctly - that's so obvious I have no idea why you felt the need to point it out.

Apparently it was not obvious to you. Otherwise you wouldn't be clamouring for removing the 'worse' options but would suggest reducing their price instead.

Intercessors actually have the correct number of options, assuming all the guns cost 0 points.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

3. Frags haven't been good the entirety of several editions. Even in a house rule system for better placement of small blasts, the frag missile was bad. It's still bad now because everyone gets a save against it, and has random shots.

You keep saying this, but it certainly hasn't been my experience.

I do wonder how much of it comes down to the tournament vs casual divide. Small blasts were rubbish against opponents who always maximise their squad coherency - but from my experience, the vast majority of players never actually did that. Missile launchers as a result filled in a handy multi-purpose role, being slightly worse than a heavy bolter for taking out troops, and slightly worse than a lascannon for taking out armour, but making up for those deficiencies by being cheap and by being able to do both of those things.

As such, claiming that removing it is the only way to fix it is a little absurd. If the current rules leave it not being useful, then the issue is with how it is costed against the other weapon options, which isn't an insurmountable problem that can only be fixed by removing it from the game.

 insaniak wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

3. Frags haven't been good the entirety of several editions. Even in a house rule system for better placement of small blasts, the frag missile was bad. It's still bad now because everyone gets a save against it, and has random shots.

You keep saying this, but it certainly hasn't been my experience.

I do wonder how much of it comes down to the tournament vs casual divide. Small blasts were rubbish against opponents who always maximise their squad coherency - but from my experience, the vast majority of players never actually did that. Missile launchers as a result filled in a handy multi-purpose role, being slightly worse than a heavy bolter for taking out troops, and slightly worse than a lascannon for taking out armour, but making up for those deficiencies by being cheap and by being able to do both of those things.

As such, claiming that removing it is the only way to fix it is a little absurd. If the current rules leave it not being useful, then the issue is with how it is costed against the other weapon options, which isn't an insurmountable problem that can only be fixed by removing it from the game.

Saying a weapon was fine if your opponent played bad doesn't mean the weapon was fine. It's saying your opponent was playing badly.
Even ignoring Frags for a moment and consider Thunderfire Cannons for moment, they barely worked and did WAY more shots at BS5 to boot. If you brought 6 of those and your opponent still decided not to use max coherency, that's just your opponent being bad. It doesn't mean the Thunderfire is a successful unit. The current iteration is a much better iteration.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Saying a weapon was fine if your opponent played bad doesn't mean the weapon was fine. It's saying your opponent was playing badly.

Sure. But if it's also the way the vast majority of people play, then it's not actually a particularly big issue. For most players, frag missiles with small blasts were fine the way they were, because math-hammer in that instance didn't match what actually tended to happen on the table.

Even ignoring Frags for a moment and consider Thunderfire Cannons for moment, they barely worked and did WAY more shots at BS5 to boot. If you brought 6 of those...

...and, really, who amongst us doesn't routinely field six thunderfire cannons...?

 insaniak wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Saying a weapon was fine if your opponent played bad doesn't mean the weapon was fine. It's saying your opponent was playing badly.

Sure. But if it's also the way the vast majority of people play, then it's not actually a particularly big issue. For most players, frag missiles with small blasts were fine the way they were, because math-hammer in that instance didn't match what actually tended to happen on the table.

Even ignoring Frags for a moment and consider Thunderfire Cannons for moment, they barely worked and did WAY more shots at BS5 to boot. If you brought 6 of those...

...and, really, who amongst us doesn't routinely field six thunderfire cannons...?

Maybe 2 Thunderfires, but it was mostly to prove a point that, if your opponent is loading up on so many small blasts, you not mitigating that damage makes you a bad player. Pure and simple.

Regarding mathhammer for small blasts, it's typical to look at three scenarios assuming your opponent isn't braindead and maxed coherence accordingly:
1. Your blast scatters and you're lucky to hit 2 dudes.
2. Your shot is perfect, meaning just the one dude under the blast is hit
3. You scattered off, either hitting another unit of your opponent's or your own for some inexplicable reason.

Oh right. We're back at pre-eight-edition mathammer where everyone is spread to max coherency without fail and still somehow at the same time always in cover.

 Crimson wrote:
Oh right. We're back at pre-eight-edition mathammer where everyone is spread to max coherency without fail and still somehow at the same time always in cover.

I didn't say anything about cover. That said, you can't deny it was pretty easy to claim you had cover with 6th and 7th.

Besides that's what Flamer weapons were for anyway!