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:

Blastaar wrote:

Yes, GW prefers a system with no defined scale, for people to push their overpriced action figures around and make pew pew noises. Let's face it, GW survives thanks to 21st century materialism. People love the models, and will continue to buy them so long as GW say nice things and make funny youtube videos- it's easier to rationalize that way. It isn't the game, and it probably never really was. I know I was drawn to the game in no small part due to the prospect of playing with cool toys. It's just too bad the rules (and prices) aren't anywhere near the same league as the lore and minis, and that people are willing to tolerate that to get their fix of new plastic. When I want a sandbox, I play Minecraft or an RPG. GW's prices are far too high, as is the investment to get minis from NOS to battle-ready, for so little in return.

Honestly, I don't think it's as black and white as that. I got into the game in 2nd edition when, frankly, a lot of the miniatures weren't very good. I stuck around because the game was a hell of a lot of fun to play, despite its gaping holes. 3rd edition, once we all got over the shock of all the things that had been ripped out, was still fun. 4th edition was a chore (IMO, apparently a lot of people liked it) and I stopped playing for a while, and then 5th edition came along and the game, while still a long way from perfect, was fun to play again. And then it got less fun... but again, that's just IMO. A awful lot of people seem to be very happy with 8th, and it's not just because the models are pretty.

The thing is, from my experience the vast majority of players simply don't care whether or not the rules are water-tight. They might bemoan those units that never seem to perform as well, (and as often as not, keep using them anyway) but otherwise those wonky parts of the rules just get papered over as necessary and people get on with the game. It's only on forums, or in the post-game conversation where the rules really get dissected and it all seems like a bigger deal.

Having better-written rules is good... but having a game that is fun to play is ultimately more important than having flawless rules. For me, that's where 6th edition and onwards have failed. The rules have arguably improved from previous editions... but it's no longer fun to play.


YMMV, obviously.

I started with 5th, but didn't get many games in 'til 6th.... I also played through most of 7th. The game was fun... for a while. It became increasingly frustrating, as the folks at the GW store I used to frequent became more and more focused on building the strongest lists they could, and I didn't (and don't) have the means to make purchases to keep up, and frankly shouldn't need to buy the half of my codex I don't own just to have fun, so I quit. I can't get into 8th either- chucking dice around the room and shuffling minis around just isn't enough for me. It isn't just the casual style with which GW writes the rules, it's their narrow scope and lack of imagination.They regurgitate the same few ideas ad nauseam, and rarely innovate. Worst of all, the rules just don't represent the fluff well.

I don't know anything about 40k pre-4th edition (got some books, didn't have a chance to play 'til 5th) so I can't really comment on that, but I think it's pretty clear that today, it's minis first. I think the player base at large really has adopted GW's "beer-and-pretzels" mindset- people aren't looking to 40k for a strategic or even immersive experience, it's a social activity. I have RPGs, Munchkin, Catan, etc. for that.

Ugh. I just wish I could get some people into MEDGe.

Blastaar wrote:

@Clockwor Zion, in a well-balanced game, scenarios and objectives don't render some units better than others- they still have purpose. An exception to this would be Malifaux: if I remember correctly, the players choose their faction and the objectives are decided before you build your crew- my only real complaint. The game does have a neat system of asymmetrical mission objectives, though, that would make 40k much more interesting.

I have to disagree using a mission type video game as an example: Metal Gear Peace Walker. The entire load out a player uses is largely dependent on the mission they're running through and how they want to complete said mission.

Missions can and do influence the way a player can approach army building and the only way it' d change is if the ways a player can score were identical on every mission with both players having a near identical tool box to pick from to accomplish said objectives.

40k doesn't approach mission design that way, and even tournaments don't do it. Instead they either let you pick your means of scoring (which can lead to some wonky games on their own right) or they run the standard GW missions.

It's not impossible for that to be changed, but let's not claim it isn't a factor in how people design their lists and evaluate units to complete tasks to fulfill win conditions.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

@Clockwor Zion, in a well-balanced game, scenarios and objectives don't render some units better than others- they still have purpose. An exception to this would be Malifaux: if I remember correctly, the players choose their faction and the objectives are decided before you build your crew- my only real complaint. The game does have a neat system of asymmetrical mission objectives, though, that would make 40k much more interesting.

I have to disagree using a mission type video game as an example: Metal Gear Peace Walker. The entire load out a player uses is largely dependent on the mission they're running through and how they want to complete said mission.

Missions can and do influence the way a player can approach army building and the only way it' d change is if the ways a player can score were identical on every mission with both players having a near identical tool box to pick from to accomplish said objectives.

40k doesn't approach mission design that way, and even tournaments don't do it. Instead they either let you pick your means of scoring (which can lead to some wonky games on their own right) or they run the standard GW missions.

It's not impossible for that to be changed, but let's not claim it isn't a factor in how people design their lists and evaluate units to complete tasks to fulfill win conditions.

I don't think that's the best example- I presume that's a single-player game, yes? And you only control the one person, right? What you describe is great for a game like that, in that context. But 40k is played by two or more people, with essentially many "video game characters" at once, and often they discover that some of their cool spacemen can't do much. And before getting to that point, they probably spent a few hundred dollars, and however many hours it took to build and paint them. If 40k were cheap prepaints, I'd agree with you.

I really think asymmetrical, turn-by-turn scoring would help alleviate this. As would a focus on combined-arms warfare. I don't particularly want to leave my termies, or Brother Locutus (my libby) on the bench because of the mission.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

As to missions the relevance of a given unit cannot change dramatically from mission to mission unless you're prepared to take the Infinity route and explicitly call out list-building as happening after missions are determined. I need to be able to build a list, take it to a game store, and say "I've got my army, what mission are we doing?", I shouldn't have to say "Oh, no, I can't interact with that mission, pick something else." (Narrow the Search from CA2018 is really bad about that; taking away Invulnerable saves and scoring by model count disproportionately screw some Codexes as a whole. If I bring Custodes I can't play that mission because I then lose because I brought an army that can't play it.)

You say it shouldn't but that's exactly what tournament packs do. A game type that involves capturing objectives every turn is going to promote different builds than on that involves scoring at game end, and both of those can lean differently on unit selection when it comes to games where scoring comes from killing models/units.

The fact that missions can influence what is "good" so drastically is a large part of why I say balance isn't as cut and dry as people insist it is. In a vacuum we can have everything roughly on par with each other, but stray out of that points level, or into missions and that balance can fall apart very fast.

Custodes would have less issues if they had gotten Sisters of Silence as part of their army, but I'm not going to beat that dead horse here.

There are two objectives in 40k. "Stand on the point" and "kill things". All missions are some permutation of those. The tournament mission packs I've seen only deviate from GW's design strategy by putting "stand on the point" and "kill things" in the same missions. And GW still insists on designing armies that can't stand on the point, can't kill things, or both.

Consider as an aside Infinity. The mission objectives are many and varied, but they fundamentally boil down to either "stand on the point", "kill things", or "press the button." All armies are designed with a variety of tools to enable them to stand on the point, kill things, or press the button, and when you are handed a mission you've never seen before because you know the design space of the objectives you don't have to have built a different army list just to handle this different mission.

Blastaar wrote:



I started with 5th, but didn't get many games in 'til 6th.... I also played through most of 7th. The game was fun... for a while. It became increasingly frustrating, as the folks at the GW store I used to frequent became more and more focused on building the strongest lists they could, and I didn't (and don't) have the means to make purchases to keep up, and frankly shouldn't need to buy the half of my codex I don't own just to have fun, so I quit. I can't get into 8th either- chucking dice around the room and shuffling minis around just isn't enough for me. It isn't just the casual style with which GW writes the rules, it's their narrow scope and lack of imagination.They regurgitate the same few ideas ad nauseam, and rarely innovate. Worst of all, the rules just don't represent the fluff well.

I don't know anything about 40k pre-4th edition (got some books, didn't have a chance to play 'til 5th) so I can't really comment on that, but I think it's pretty clear that today, it's minis first. I think the player base at large really has adopted GW's "beer-and-pretzels" mindset- people aren't looking to 40k for a strategic or even immersive experience, it's a social activity. I have RPGs, Munchkin, Catan, etc. for that.

Ugh. I just wish I could get some people into MEDGe.

So I've said it a million times, and I'll say it again- the complexity of 8th does not lie in one off games. It lies in designing and and playing narrative escalation campaigns.

If you don't like playing narrative escalation campaigns, that's valid. But don't call the rules set unimaginative, or say that there's not innovation until you've played a Blackstone character long enough to gather a Kill Team, Kill Team long enough that the Team grows into a detachment and steps into 40k and then the army grows into apocalypse size. You can do this now. It's imaginative; the scope and scale is enormous, and it's the most innovative GW has ever been.

The game is not simple. You are playing the simplest form of it and complaining instead of playing it the way that could blow your mind and change the way you think not just about this game but all games. That's on you, not GW.

PenitentJake wrote:

Blastaar wrote:



I started with 5th, but didn't get many games in 'til 6th.... I also played through most of 7th. The game was fun... for a while. It became increasingly frustrating, as the folks at the GW store I used to frequent became more and more focused on building the strongest lists they could, and I didn't (and don't) have the means to make purchases to keep up, and frankly shouldn't need to buy the half of my codex I don't own just to have fun, so I quit. I can't get into 8th either- chucking dice around the room and shuffling minis around just isn't enough for me. It isn't just the casual style with which GW writes the rules, it's their narrow scope and lack of imagination.They regurgitate the same few ideas ad nauseam, and rarely innovate. Worst of all, the rules just don't represent the fluff well.

I don't know anything about 40k pre-4th edition (got some books, didn't have a chance to play 'til 5th) so I can't really comment on that, but I think it's pretty clear that today, it's minis first. I think the player base at large really has adopted GW's "beer-and-pretzels" mindset- people aren't looking to 40k for a strategic or even immersive experience, it's a social activity. I have RPGs, Munchkin, Catan, etc. for that.

Ugh. I just wish I could get some people into MEDGe.

So I've said it a million times, and I'll say it again- the complexity of 8th does not lie in one off games. It lies in designing and and playing narrative escalation campaigns.

If you don't like playing narrative escalation campaigns, that's valid. But don't call the rules set unimaginative, or say that there's not innovation until you've played a Blackstone character long enough to gather a Kill Team, Kill Team long enough that the Team grows into a detachment and steps into 40k and then the army grows into apocalypse size. You can do this now. It's imaginative; the scope and scale is enormous, and it's the most innovative GW has ever been.

The game is not simple. You are playing the simplest form of it and complaining instead of playing it the way that could blow your mind and change the way you think not just about this game but all games. That's on you, not GW.

Hey, escalation campaigns are cool, but I'm not going to buy Blackstone Fortress, and Kill Team, and 8th BRB, and codex and supplements, to finally have fun- that doesn't blow my mind, it blows my wallet up. I want good one-off games from 40k. I want good campaigns from 40k. I want skirmishes with converted minis with unique load outs with the depth and level of detail you can't get in larger scale games in Kill Team- but they don't offer those things, and if buying several different 40k rulesets was the path to finally having fun with the game, there's a problem.

You may have a great imagination, and a knack for designing cool scenarios- but that's your work, not GW's.

Blastaar wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

@Clockwor Zion, in a well-balanced game, scenarios and objectives don't render some units better than others- they still have purpose. An exception to this would be Malifaux: if I remember correctly, the players choose their faction and the objectives are decided before you build your crew- my only real complaint. The game does have a neat system of asymmetrical mission objectives, though, that would make 40k much more interesting.

I have to disagree using a mission type video game as an example: Metal Gear Peace Walker. The entire load out a player uses is largely dependent on the mission they're running through and how they want to complete said mission.

Missions can and do influence the way a player can approach army building and the only way it' d change is if the ways a player can score were identical on every mission with both players having a near identical tool box to pick from to accomplish said objectives.

40k doesn't approach mission design that way, and even tournaments don't do it. Instead they either let you pick your means of scoring (which can lead to some wonky games on their own right) or they run the standard GW missions.

It's not impossible for that to be changed, but let's not claim it isn't a factor in how people design their lists and evaluate units to complete tasks to fulfill win conditions.

I don't think that's the best example- I presume that's a single-player game, yes? And you only control the one person, right? What you describe is great for a game like that, in that context. But 40k is played by two or more people, with essentially many "video game characters" at once, and often they discover that some of their cool spacemen can't do much. And before getting to that point, they probably spent a few hundred dollars, and however many hours it took to build and paint them. If 40k were cheap prepaints, I'd agree with you.

I really think asymmetrical, turn-by-turn scoring would help alleviate this. As would a focus on combined-arms warfare. I don't particularly want to leave my termies, or Brother Locutus (my libby) on the bench because of the mission.

Multiplayer co-op or single player actually.

And I don't disagree a change to scoring (perhaps assihning attacker and defender roles with different ways to score) could help but missions need to be written with those in mind and then armies balanced for it (as well as players having two lists to run based on attacking or defending).

Water tight rules thought aren't as key to me as all units have some value. In some cases, models even designed in similar kits just have no real worth to them.

Yet again, Ogryn example because it's easier to see. Other than being cheaper, Ogryns do nothing better than Bullgryns, they have no real bonus over Bullgryns in any way. There is nothing they'd be chosen for over the other regardless of scenario.

The only thing they are better at is they are cheaper, that's it. Worse armor, no invuln, worse CC weapon, worse damage. They have a shotgun, but the Bullgryns can have grenade launchers and better armor, or just use grenades strat and have the better CCW but can actually still survive.

They are a stark example of something that shouldn't be hard to balance at least in so far as unit selection. In the same kit, one unit is good, the other is just straight trash, cheap trash but trash still.

It shouldn't be hard to look at two units, made from the same box and give them some worth, even if its situational worth though there the only thing they do, the one unit is superior at leaving the other choice without any real bite or merit.

It's tragic sad that after all this time they've been around they've been bad. Couldn't they just figure out some imagine role for ogryns ? Maybe they have another special rule ? Give their ripper gun more capability ? Increase their movement for the lighter armor ? A number of other things could be done. They give lip service to the dream of balance.

The only real balance I think most players lament is so many dead units in a codex. The game can be not as tight as we'd maybe want but they could at least make real choices need to be made in army selection at the more competitive levels or give every unit a task. As opposed to leaving some units to be just a dead choice, pretty much no matter what.

I can agree with that. We do have some issues involving specific options and the studio hadn't done a stellar job correcting those issues. The focus so far has been on fixing Marines but I sincerely hope they redress those units when it's time to give those books an 8.5 ed.

 Peregrine wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
If they have different rules, and the objective is to have them be represented as different things so that people can differentiate between a sword and an axe, then they're meaningfully different. The fact that you personally don't think that level of differentiation is warranted doesn't mean the rest of us don't want it, or that having it is intrinsically bad.

In what way are they meaningful? What on-table decisions are determined by the choice? Is there any level of difference between choices that is sufficiently small that you would consider it irrelevant, or is even something as absurd as "if you are playing this game at 5:40pm on 9/14/19 and roll three consecutive 6s followed by a 1 with this weapon you may re-roll the 1" still a "meaningful difference" that is a legitimate rule to put on a datasheet?

Well, that would be an example of an objectively bad rule, to the extent that not even the GW Studio would publish it.

After all, they're fully aware there are only 12 months in the year, not 14.

 Peregrine wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
As I outlined, there are factors that can push things into autotakes or never takes. It's easy to make up criteria but even then that criteria can go a bit sideways. It can vary from tournament circuit to tournament circuit in competetive due to the mission types, and from store to store based on the store metas.

That's why you balance based on win rate against the meta over a long series of games using the standard mission set. If some random third-party event creates different missions that unbalance the game then that's their fault for creating and using unbalanced material instead of playing the standard game.

And yet people still seem to want GW to balance around performance measured using the ITC house rules, rather than the game they publish...

(snip)

 Dysartes wrote:

And yet people still seem to want GW to balance around performance measured using the ITC house rules, rather than the game they publish...

This is the stupidest part of their argument. Why on terra would anyone want the game balanced with rules that only a small portion of the players play?

Oh, I forgot....they're uniquely qualified and their opinion is the only warranted one. Naturally.

If that is what you want, fine, go play ITC and leave the rest of the game alone. Since the game designers intent is evident.

Because itc implements a world ranking and that has always been the wet dream of 40k players for almost two decades.

 auticus wrote:
Because itc implements a world ranking and that has always been the wet dream of 40k players for almost two decades.

Of a loud minority of 40k players, maybe.

Maybe. I know in my city they make up the majority of 40k players. No I'm not one of them nor do I care about 40k anymore because I got tired of having to buy new armies every year to have good games.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
If they have different rules, and the objective is to have them be represented as different things so that people can differentiate between a sword and an axe, then they're meaningfully different. The fact that you personally don't think that level of differentiation is warranted doesn't mean the rest of us don't want it, or that having it is intrinsically bad.

In what way are they meaningful? What on-table decisions are determined by the choice? Is there any level of difference between choices that is sufficiently small that you would consider it irrelevant, or is even something as absurd as "if you are playing this game at 5:40pm on 9/14/19 and roll three consecutive 6s followed by a 1 with this weapon you may re-roll the 1" still a "meaningful difference" that is a legitimate rule to put on a datasheet?

Well, that would be an example of an objectively bad rule, to the extent that not even the GW Studio would publish it.

After all, they're fully aware there are only 12 months in the year, not 14.

 Peregrine wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
As I outlined, there are factors that can push things into autotakes or never takes. It's easy to make up criteria but even then that criteria can go a bit sideways. It can vary from tournament circuit to tournament circuit in competetive due to the mission types, and from store to store based on the store metas.

That's why you balance based on win rate against the meta over a long series of games using the standard mission set. If some random third-party event creates different missions that unbalance the game then that's their fault for creating and using unbalanced material instead of playing the standard game.

And yet people still seem to want GW to balance around performance measured using the ITC house rules, rather than the game they publish...

No, people want the rules balanced so you don't look immediately at a unit entry and can tell the unit is useless. Not terribly a difficult concept to grasp.

AngryAngel80 wrote:

Yet again, Ogryn example because it's easier to see. Other than being cheaper, Ogryns do nothing better than Bullgryns, they have no real bonus over Bullgryns in any way. ...

I can't speak to whether or not either of these units are worth their points cost as they currently stand, but it's worth pointing out that if Ogryns are cheaper, they should be worse than Bullgryns. If they were as good as Bullgryns, they should cost the same.

?? That is such an over simplification. Yes, they should cost less as they do everything a bullgryn does but worse but then why not give them rules so they actually serve a different purpose ? Or go about it a different way ?

Units can be cheaper but arguably more valuable. As we see every day in the debate of Imperial guard troop squads. How much better than a marine they are, yet cheaper.

Ogryns aren't cheap enough that they compare well to bullgryns even with the discount, they can't outshoot them, are worse in their CC role but have no other role in their rules. The design team which is so fired up narrative, could narrative them some bonus that makes them appealing in some scenario other than a little cheaper.

Cheaper units can be less likely to hang around, do less damage but maybe have a point, maybe they move faster ? Infiltrate ? Get bonus to charge as they are more mobile ? The ripper gun has some special ability tied to it ? Maybe it shoots fire rounds and now while they die quicker, they pack a bit more punch so its offense extras, over defense ?

You could really make up anything to give them a purpose, hey, say the ripper gun counts as a pistol in CC ! There, lovely, they now have at least some argument points as to why anyone would run them, over bullgryns and yet they'd still be cheaper.

Even kroot, the forgotten about mishandled kroot had times they felt like a viable choice, does anyone remember when you could upgrade their muskets to have sniper rounds ? That was pretty cool, made me take some because they felt like they had a point. Sure, they feel bad now, again but they even had a time where you could bring up a reason to take them other than. " Well, they are cheaper then a fire warrior "

Sure, then make them as good as bullgryns just in a different way ? Make them offensive and Bullgryns defensive, as we learned with GK " fixes " just making things cheaper doesn't always mean you made it any good.

well it is funny that an interceptor costs less then a strike. The differences can be rather striking though. A GK strikes or interceptor are far from ideal, but a termintor costs double the strike/interceptor cost, and have lower attack per points, lower shot per points, lower wounds per points etc And no special rules or buff, that would not just make them better, but just different.

AngryAngel80 wrote:

Ogryns aren't cheap enough that they compare well to bullgryns even with the discount, they can't outshoot them, are worse in their CC role but have no other role in their rules.

Their role is that they are cheaper. When you have a finite pool of points to spend, that's a valid role. You can take the cheaper option, that isn't as good, or you can choose to sacrifice the extra points to take the better unit rather than having those points to spend elsewhere.

If you make them as good as Bullgryns, then they need to cost the same amount as Bullgryns. That's how a points system works.

But the point difference isn't big enough for anyone to ever take ogryns, unless someone plays some weird point armies and not 2000.

Karol wrote:
But the point difference isn't big enough for anyone to ever take ogryns, unless someone plays some weird point armies and not 2000.

Sure, as I said at the start, I wasn't speaking to whether or not the points difference is entirely correct, just what the difference should mean.

Karol wrote:
But the point difference isn't big enough for anyone to ever take ogryns, unless someone plays some weird point armies and not 2000.

1750 is pretty common in Europe.
1500 aswell
1000 doubles and single also.

The point is and still remains after exhaustive use with them. Even at the discount taking half as many bullgryns will do you better than double the ogryns. Even in a point thirsty case, now I point out the army itself is very point low with its troops so that cheapness that is their point is really no point at all.

Saying the point is they are cheap, means nothing if you'd still take bullgryns because Ogryns just aren't worth it for anything you'd take them for.

It's as completely dumb as the conscript fix that they cost the same as regular trooper for being much much worse. I can't even make myself want to field them as they are so bad now and I took them since 3rd edition.

Ogryns are so bad I take them as a handicap if I know i'm playing a worse player or I just want to mess around.

So why even bring up the point of " Their use is they are cheap ", when that cheapness means nothing because it isn't reasonable enough for that to be considered a trait or even a real consideration point. You're better off spending more on Bullgryns and saving points elsewhere as one does the job and the other doesn't.


As well, they are made from the same box so the fact they can't even dream up some way to make them both viable is pretty shocking. That itself shouldn't be hard when compared next to each other, one is the default choice for obvious reasons. So if they can't do that, simple thing, after decades, why would anyone have hope they'll do it ever with anything ?

Much like the new IH panic that is one us, they must have made all these books knowing what each one was doing and made one just a brainlessly dim point and click no brainer choice because the play style is so easy. It takes much skill, to fail so badly at balance and parity from the same codex using the same units even.

AngryAngel80 wrote:
So why even bring up the point of " Their use is they are cheap ", when that cheapness means nothing because it isn't reasonable enough for that to be considered a trait or even a real consideration point. You're better off spending more on Bullgryns and saving points elsewhere as one does the job and the other doesn't.

I brought it up in response to your previous point, which was that Ogryns are cheaper but should still be as good as Bullgryns, because that just isn't how points work.

If your point is now that the difference isn't significant enough to make Ogryns an attractive option, then that's potentially valid (I don't mathHammer, so I have no idea whether it is or not) but is a different point entirely. And if so, then making Ogryns better is only one of the potential fixes to that situation - you could also make Ogryns still cheaper, or make Bullgryns more expensive, depending on how that works in with the rest of the army.


Regardless of whether or not GW get the formula exactly right in any specific scenario, being cheaper than a better unit is a valid reason for taking something. Every unit shouldn't be equally effective, and less effective units should be cheaper.

As well, they are made from the same box so the fact they can't even dream up some way to make them both viable is pretty shocking.

It's not that shocking if you have been paying attention to the way GW have been designing army lists for the last 30 years. There's far less mathHammer, and far more 'That feels about right' going on than there tends to be in the online community, and they're not remotely interested in the form of play that revolves around optimised army lists. So it's less that they can't think of a way to fix the imbalance you're seeing, and more that they don't perceive it to need fixing because they play (and so design) a much more casual game than you do.

 insaniak wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:
So why even bring up the point of " Their use is they are cheap ", when that cheapness means nothing because it isn't reasonable enough for that to be considered a trait or even a real consideration point. You're better off spending more on Bullgryns and saving points elsewhere as one does the job and the other doesn't.

I brought it up in response to your previous point, which was that Ogryns are cheaper but should still be as good as Bullgryns, because that just isn't how points work.

If your point is now that the difference isn't significant enough to make Ogryns an attractive option, then that's potentially valid (I don't mathHammer, so I have no idea whether it is or not) but is a different point entirely. And if so, then making Ogryns better is only one of the potential fixes to that situation - you could also make Ogryns still cheaper, or make Bullgryns more expensive, depending on how that works in with the rest of the army.


Regardless of whether or not GW get the formula exactly right in any specific scenario, being cheaper than a better unit is a valid reason for taking something. Every unit shouldn't be equally effective, and less effective units should be cheaper.

As well, they are made from the same box so the fact they can't even dream up some way to make them both viable is pretty shocking.

It's not that shocking if you have been paying attention to the way GW have been designing army lists for the last 30 years. There's far less mathHammer, and far more 'That feels about right' going on than there tends to be in the online community, and they're not remotely interested in the form of play that revolves around optimised army lists. So it's less that they can't think of a way to fix the imbalance you're seeing, and more that they don't perceive it to need fixing because they play (and so design) a much more casual game than you do.

What the mod says is right. You also have to appreciate not every unit was designed with a specific role or gap to fill. Ogryns were brought in because space ogres would be cool. And this brings up old units that have had their role taken away by newer units. Thirty years of models and back ground their will be overlap.

Not every unit needs a unique role. Some units should be their so that people who like the, can have a choice. I housed rules Ogryn Mercs for ORKS and a criticism I got of the rules when I post them on here for feedback was that nobz with big choppas did the same job better. But that missed the point of why I wanted to have ogryns in my ORK army. It was because of nostalgia. And in a game I would be willing to pay more for a less effective unit because I really liked it and wanted it in my army. GW get this and make units like that for players like me.

Andykp wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:
So why even bring up the point of " Their use is they are cheap ", when that cheapness means nothing because it isn't reasonable enough for that to be considered a trait or even a real consideration point. You're better off spending more on Bullgryns and saving points elsewhere as one does the job and the other doesn't.

I brought it up in response to your previous point, which was that Ogryns are cheaper but should still be as good as Bullgryns, because that just isn't how points work.

If your point is now that the difference isn't significant enough to make Ogryns an attractive option, then that's potentially valid (I don't mathHammer, so I have no idea whether it is or not) but is a different point entirely. And if so, then making Ogryns better is only one of the potential fixes to that situation - you could also make Ogryns still cheaper, or make Bullgryns more expensive, depending on how that works in with the rest of the army.


Regardless of whether or not GW get the formula exactly right in any specific scenario, being cheaper than a better unit is a valid reason for taking something. Every unit shouldn't be equally effective, and less effective units should be cheaper.

As well, they are made from the same box so the fact they can't even dream up some way to make them both viable is pretty shocking.

It's not that shocking if you have been paying attention to the way GW have been designing army lists for the last 30 years. There's far less mathHammer, and far more 'That feels about right' going on than there tends to be in the online community, and they're not remotely interested in the form of play that revolves around optimised army lists. So it's less that they can't think of a way to fix the imbalance you're seeing, and more that they don't perceive it to need fixing because they play (and so design) a much more casual game than you do.

What the mod says is right. You also have to appreciate not every unit was designed with a specific role or gap to fill. Ogryns were brought in because space ogres would be cool. And this brings up old units that have had their role taken away by newer units. Thirty years of models and back ground their will be overlap.

Not every unit needs a unique role. Some units should be their so that people who like the, can have a choice. I housed rules Ogryn Mercs for ORKS and a criticism I got of the rules when I post them on here for feedback was that nobz with big choppas did the same job better. But that missed the point of why I wanted to have ogryns in my ORK army. It was because of nostalgia. And in a game I would be willing to pay more for a less effective unit because I really liked it and wanted it in my army. GW get this and make units like that for players like me.

No the mod is NOT right. Being cheaper means nothing when the equivalent points of Ogryns is always worse than the equivalent points of Bullgryns.

In other words, if you can't afford Bullgryns, it is pointless to even consider Ogryns as a reasonable substitute.

I take mine because I’ve got six lovely old metal models that have seen me great for years and I have some real history with. They are characters and part of any army I take that is over 75 power level or so.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

No the mod is NOT right. Being cheaper means nothing when the equivalent points of Ogryns is always worse than the equivalent points of Bullgryns.

I don't recall ever claiming that the points cost for Ogryns was correct. My point was solely that cheaper units should not be as effective as more expensive units.

 insaniak wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

No the mod is NOT right. Being cheaper means nothing when the equivalent points of Ogryns is always worse than the equivalent points of Bullgryns.

I don't recall ever claiming that the points cost for Ogryns was correct. My point was solely that cheaper units should not be as effective as more expensive units.

The issue that causes this is that standard 40k doesn't have enough granularity to properly represent unit offense vs defense.

The reasons (until recently with a ton of changes ) you always saw scouts over tacticals or just F it go get the loyal 32 is that there are to many units and weapons that don't care whether it's a terminator, an orgyn or a grot. They all die the same so I might as well just bring the most bodies and hope for screens and sixes to save the day.