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.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I don't think it would be unfair at all to state that not only have Marines been given the most attention by far of any other, but that they've gained more and lost less as a proportion than all the other armies have collectively combined.

That was neither the point I was making nor the point I was responding to. I know Marines have got the most attention. That's not in dispute.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Sure, some armies have gotten new stuff. Others have not. Dark Eldar however have been cut to the bone, any subfaction that FW ever did is basically kaput at this point (all 3 different DKoK regiment types, Elysians, Renegades & Heretics, Eldar Corsairs, etc). I cannot think of any Space Marine faction that has been similarly treated, even Black Templars got their own unique chapter tactic and still get a couple unique units of their own.

The argument wasn't that Marines were losing units, it was the idea that the non-Marine factions in the game keep losing units whilst Marines gained them. That is flat out false.

Since the last Tyranid release, have Tyranids lost anything*? GSC? Orks? Two flavours of Eldar got new models. I'm asking a genuine question here: What's the last kit to go out of production (that wasn't immediately replaced with a newer plastic kit, obviously) and does it satisfy the theory that non Marines "keep losing [their units]" .

The only recent one I can find is the Blood Angel Tactical Squad. That kit vanished from all versions of the website a week or so ago. Not out stock. Not temporarily unavailable. Vanished. It appears that the Start Collecting! Blood Angel box that also contains those sprues went out of stock, and has only just resurfaced on at least the UK website. Now it could be an error - HTML linking not allowing the page to be displayed for instance. It could be an actual stock issue. It could be a COVID thing. Who knows. I noticed that it went away. What else has**? and perhaps the Thermic Plasma Conduits, but that's terrain so let's not muddy the waters there.

Finally, I don't count FW factions because GW doesn't count FW factions. I'd much rather Elysians and everyone else got to hang about, but they stopped selling the models, so those factions vanished. That sucks, but it doesn't have much bearing on 40K proper because GW didn't write those units, FW did, and GW and FW don't get along.

*No, Shrikes don't count. They're a long OOP FW unit. I'm talking about GW produce plastic and GW produce rules, the only thing that matters no matter much some may wish it wasn't the case.

**And not terrain, either. Obviously. If it sounds like I'm over clarifying with these notes it's because there are some people at this website who follow me into threads to split hairs and "wElL aCtUaLlY" me because they don't understand context or scope. These person's name may or may not rhyme with "Berbis".

 Vaktathi wrote:
The 3050 thing is an entirely different issue, that's far more akin to something like the End Times than anything Marine related, the Clan invasion heralded a massive lore change while also introducing a ton of power bloat. While it's fair to point out that a quarter century later it's probably not worth still being mad about, but I don't think that's the same thing as making the point that if some units can share a unit entry, they should, and that having special extra unit entries just for the sake of having additional pagespace isn't actually contributing much to flavor in and of itself.

I can see your End Times point, but it's not to the same degree, as End Times changed everything, right down to the core mechanics of the game. The Clans did not do such a thing. They just added more stuff into the game.

And this is why I make the comparison. Since 8th began GW has added more stuff to Marines more than any other faction, but how much of that more stuff is too much is only decided on an individual level. If it is too much for someone, then they, as I argued with BTech, they can ignore it. They don't have to use Primaris stuff, as I didn't for all of last Edition.

I don't like that Necrons have vehicles with crew. I don't like that Tyranids have special characters. I'm not demanding that these things be removed form the game for "consolidation" purposes or any other reason. I'll just choose to not use them, and I certainly wouldn't expect my own problems with these units to be mandatory for other players.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Another place where this doesn't work is that 40k does mean for everything to be used at the same time, nothing is broken up into eras or locales, and the game tries to incorporate and portray things so small that Battletech really doesn't concern itself with (like an individual Grot and the grot's sidearm) as well as units much larger than what Battletech typically concerns itself with (such as a Warlord Titan standing more than twice the height of an Atlas).

But that's the point! That's how they chose to deal with all those extras. They didn't consolidate them, they split them up into more manageable eras. They didn't take stuff away. The people in this thread are arguing for fewer options. Not more. C'mon Vaktathi. We've been at this website for years. I seem to remember you lamenting the loss of the 3.5 Chaos Codex. Why would you ever want any other faction to go through the same thing as us Chaos players did at the start of 4th?

 Vaktathi wrote:
I'll also note that while Battletech has gobs of mechs, those mechs are all basically built according to a set of universal rules by which anyone can make any mech they want within the given guidelines...

This is an interesting point (that I'm cutting down for brevity). If 40k had a universal set of "design rules" (that need not be public, mind you - it can just be an internal thing) that was as well crafted and robust as BTech's, then I think the game would improve dramatically. But even with this system, the folks creating new 'Mechs still make things that are redundant, or similar, because that's how the universe works. I don't see why 40k or any wargame would be any different

 Vaktathi wrote:
They'll give you background, unit compositions, history, character info, etc, but something like the 1st Marik Protectors release isn't dumping huge amounts of special rules or unique units into the game either.

Well, that's not quite true. Yes, everything stems from the same basic core design rules, but they have introduced new units for specific factions. The Clans are the obvious and overwhelming example, but I'm thinking the Word of Blake. Their Celestial line of 'Mechs - again, fully acknowledging that they exist within the same basic design rules - were different enough from everyone else, using some new rules (not many) they invented for those units. Those rules have since been incorporated into the general design rules, so that anyone can use the tech the Wobbies had, but they do do unique forces for factions, however rare that might be.

To sum up:

It was stated that Marines keep getting new units whilst everyone else loses theirs.

This is not true. It just isn't. I don't know how else to put it.

BrianDavion wrote:
it's actually worth noting that battletech tried to address the whole "ohh there's so much stuff people are prevented from getting involved" it was called Mechwarrior dark age. remember that game? If you don't I don't blame you

Dark Age wasn't an attempt to rationalise BattleTech though. It was an attempt from BTech's creator, who had long since jettisoned himself from the creation of the BattleTech game, to make a game where it was like the "good old days", only with less tech somehow. It exemplified the "grognard" mentality that I talked about before.

And whilst I remember it, I'm trying to forget it.

BrianDavion wrote:
well aside from among taurian fans insisting it's totally logical a second rate periphary state could conquer the federated suns

What do you call a Taurian fan? Nothing. 'Cause nobody cares about Taurian fans.

If other people see value in something for the hobby enough to spend their hard earned money on it, who am I to say there is too much when obviously the sales figures say otherwise?

Might be too much for me, but that is easy for me because I don’t buy things I don’t want. Having more diversity of options on the table top is good. Doesn’t matter if it’s in power army, wraith bone, flayed skin of the non-believers. I still get to have a game that is different from the last.

Marines could have some consolidation I don't thing anybody disagrees with that. What people disagree is with the level of that consolidation and prune of datasheets.

But TBH I just don't trust GW to do consolidations of armies. They always screw you up when they do it.

And in the age of "Primaris Captain in Gravis Armor with Master-Crafted Autoboltrifle", it doesn't look like GW wants to consolidate anything into "generic" datasheets.

 Galas wrote:
Marines could have some consolidation I don't thing anybody disagrees with that. What people disagree is with the level of that consolidation and prune of datasheets.

But TBH I just don't trust GW to do consolidations of armies. They always screw you up when they do it.

And in the age of "Primaris Captain in Gravis Armor with Master-Crafted Autoboltrifle", it doesn't look like GW wants to consolidate anything into "generic" datasheets.

and Galas hits the nail on the head. as HMBC said earlier the end result would be something like CSM 4.0 which would be AWEFUL

I realise that this comment was made a few pages ago, but I'd like to come back to it if I may:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Give the Gargs their blinding venom and yeah I am pretty cool with that.

Why are you cool with this?

As to your point about power wepaons, 40K did that once. It was the change to 2nd and 3rd Ed. Eventually they brought back the variety as they wanted to have an axe perform differently to a sword/mace/whatever. What is wrong with doing that? Why is adding granularity a bad thing?

I that that this level of granularity actually does create issues for some:

- It means that you can't model whichever weapon you like best on a given model without it also affecting how that model plays on the table. Previously, it didn't matter whether a model with a Power Weapon had a sword, an axe, a mace, or even something else entirely. Now though, if you model a character as having a sword, you're locked into using that specific type of Power Weapon.

- Especially with the no-model, no-rules policy, a great many models don't have access to multiple types of Power Weapon and are stuck with only one regardless.

- Following on from the second point, the Power Sword is by far the most common type of power weapon (and the only one available to many units) . . . yet it's also the least-versatile and is almost always the least useful in general.

Put simply, I'd argue that the splitting of Power Weapons in this manner has led to most such weapons not being used at all, and reduced creativity with regard to modelling.

 vipoid wrote:
I realise that this comment was made a few pages ago, but I'd like to come back to it if I may:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Give the Gargs their blinding venom and yeah I am pretty cool with that.

Why are you cool with this?

As to your point about power wepaons, 40K did that once. It was the change to 2nd and 3rd Ed. Eventually they brought back the variety as they wanted to have an axe perform differently to a sword/mace/whatever. What is wrong with doing that? Why is adding granularity a bad thing?

I that that this level of granularity actually does create issues for some:

- It means that you can't model whichever weapon you like best on a given model without it also affecting how that model plays on the table. Previously, it didn't matter whether a model with a Power Weapon had a sword, an axe, a mace, or even something else entirely. Now though, if you model a character as having a sword, you're locked into using that specific type of Power Weapon.

- Especially with the no-model, no-rules policy, a great many models don't have access to multiple types of Power Weapon and are stuck with only one regardless.

- Following on from the second point, the Power Sword is by far the most common type of power weapon (and the only one available to many units) . . . yet it's also the least-versatile and is almost always the least useful in general.

Put simply, I'd argue that the splitting of Power Weapons in this manner has led to most such weapons not being used at all, and reduced creativity with regard to modelling.

Right. Playing minotaurs? Load them up with power spears. Playing SW? Fill them up with axes. Your Dudes? Go nuts.

Nooooooo we need rules for power glaives and power scythes and power monkey wrenches!

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Nooooooo we need rules for power glaives and power scythes and power monkey wrenches!

Hey man, you couldn't make hilarious jokes like the Angry Marine Power Feet or Power Balls if GW decided not to differentiate power weapons.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Nooooooo we need rules for power glaives and power scythes and power monkey wrenches!

Hey man, you couldn't make hilarious jokes like the Angry Marine Power Feet or Power Balls if GW decided not to differentiate power weapons.

Thats why I've been saying the profiles for the Power Sword, Power Axe, Lightning Claw, and Power Fist/Thunder Hammer basically cover all the ground necessary. I mean, did Genestealer Cults REALLY need a separate profile for a Power Pickaxe for some gimmick? Hell no.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Nooooooo we need rules for power glaives and power scythes and power monkey wrenches!

Hey man, you couldn't make hilarious jokes like the Angry Marine Power Feet or Power Balls if GW decided not to differentiate power weapons.

Thats why I've been saying the profiles for the Power Sword, Power Axe, Lightning Claw, and Power Fist/Thunder Hammer basically cover all the ground necessary. I mean, did Genestealer Cults REALLY need a separate profile for a Power Pickaxe for some gimmick? Hell no.

I think they cover too much ground. Is the difference between a handaxe and a sword in medieval combat really so significant that when 100 men and 4 catapults are fighting, it has to be explicitly modeled?

I absolutely agree with Vipoid and find it extremely frustrating that everything needs to have real mechanical differences in the name of diversity, rather than just abstracting and letting the players work it out.

Power Weapons are a clear example of when this has gone too far because they don't have a meaningful impact on how the bearer will act during the game. I accept that differences in Strength and AP have an impact on the game, but not to the extent that your models will move or engage differently once they hit the table.

I spend most of my time in 30k. Over there, we have 3 different Power Weapons:
Swords are AP3
Axes are S+1, AP2 but Unwieldy
Mauls are +2S, AP4 Concussive
If its not immediately apparent, Axes are far and away the superior option. Everyone and their mum is wearing Artificer Armour, and Unwieldy does not significantly offset the stat increases. Especially when the bearer is in a unit rather than a character, as is very common.
On the other hand I have literally never heard of anyone ever taking a Maul voluntarily, and Lances are not a legal choice outside of rare cases.

What this means that in the name of choice and diversity, you have effectively killed off swords and mauls as viable options, and made lances Non-WYSIWYG. This has not resulted in any improvement for tactics because power weapons are still sprinkled on Sergeants and Veterans, who are still engaging the same targets.
It just means that modelling your HQ with a chainsword is completely stupid and arbitrarily punishes modelling for coolness.

I would be far, far happier if 'Power Weapon' was just a broad term with a set profile and could be modelled however you like.
Probably less popular but I would personally go further and suggest that a character should have a set melee profile regardless of weapons and just let you model it as a sword, power fist, hammer etc.

It's a Company scale game featuring titans and hundreds of models in its basic format. Pretending that your HQ having a Thunder Hammer or a Lightning Claw is a meaningful tactical choice is just out of scale.

Apocalypse does exactly that Mozza. A statline is just "melee weapons" or "close combat weapons" or "Captain melee weapons" that might like, wound 1 better on a D12, irrespective of what is modeled.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Apocalypse does exactly that Mozza. A statline is just "melee weapons" or "close combat weapons" or "Captain melee weapons" that might like, wound 1 better on a D12, irrespective of what is modeled.

I've no experience with Apocalypse but that sounds great. Curious if anyone wants to chime in on how they feel about the game and how immersive it still feels.

To continue the 30k analogy, Loken is a major character and has rules in the game. His model is very obviously carrying a Chainsword, because they are cool and he is a typical cool commander.
This particular 'Chainsword' just happens to be AP2, +1s and causes Instant Death on a 6 to wound. There is no lore reason that his Chainsword should have this profile, although you could probably say its Master Crafted. It has this profile because he carries a Chainsword, but a HQ with S4 and no AP is clearly useless.
It's clearly more important that Loken feels like Loken, than a Chainsword feels like a Chainsword. It's also clear that a Chainsword can represent anything from 'nothing' to 'preferred weapon of a senior commander'.

Another thing that really gets on my nads is the need for pistols and grenades to have rules. It's a professional army; of course every single model is going to have grenades. And yet the need to cover this in rules means that A; every single datasheet is needing to carry 4 distinct weapon profiles, and B; any unit without grenades (Tyranids) is absolutely devastated despite being a supposed melee army.
It's like requiring rules for shoes or helmets, it's just an unnecessary level of detail that is so prevalent that it only takes effect when it's not there.

Another one of my favourite games is Dropzone Commander which feels extremely tactical in contrast, despite having much smaller army lists. The reason for this is that the game is heavily abstracted to pretty bare mechanics, but then forces the player to make actual choices in how they move and the units they take. Units are literally incapable of performing actions depending on their type, and this demands that a player takes a balanced list to cover all bases.
There are no semantics about whether this AA gun is a Mk1 or Mk2 or how many barrels the model has, its a case of 'Can it even target aircraft? Can it even damage the target? If yes, its probably your best choice'.

IMO whether or not two weapons need separate profiles should depend on whether they fulfil significantly different roles.

For example, a Power Sword and a Thunder Hammer will tend to be effective against quite different targets.

However, do Power Fists and Thunder Hammers really need separate profiles? It wasn't too bad in some past editions, but 8th-9th seemed like GW desperately trying to not make one outright superior to the other and failing dismally.

As already discussed, I don't think it's worth separating Power Weapons into mauls, swords, axes etc.

I don't mind Lightning Claws remaining separate, as (IMO) they're at least different enough to warrant separate profiles.

Now, I freely admit that there will be a level of opinion involved in this, and there may well be arguments over some weapons just because of the Rule of Cool, for example.

However, what I really want to avoid is a wargear list like that of the DE Haemonculus:
- Electrocorrosive Whip: S- AP-2 D2 Poison 4+ (Anti-infantry weapon, always taken)
- Agoniser: S- AP-2 D1 Poison 4+ (Anti-infantry weapon, never taken because the Whip is better)
- Venom Blade: S- AP0 D1 Poison 2+ (Anti-infantry weapon, never taken because the Whip is better)
- Flesh Gauntlet: S- AP0 D1 Poison 4+, Mortal Wound on 6+ to-wound (Anti-infantry weapon, never taken because the Whip is better)
- Scissorhands: S- AP-1 D1 Poison 4+, +1A (Anti-infantry weapon, never taken because the Whip is better)
- Mindphase Gauntlet: S User AP0 D2 (Anti-nothing weapon, never taken because its the worst weapon to ever exist)

We have 6 weapons here, of which 5 never see play. Because every single one of them is just a mediocre anti-infantry weapon, and the differences between them are minuscule. Want to be better at killing hordes? Tough. Want to try your luck against vehicles? Better hope they develop a spontaneous weakness to poison.

This is the sort of granularity that I absolutely loathe, because all it's doing is guaranteeing that the vast majority of these weapons will never be used at all.


Oh, one other thing, I know that there exist stuff like Plague Weapons or Wolf/Frost weapons, which tend to be along the lines of 'power weapon but slightly better'. However, I can't help but wonder whether these would be better served as faction/subfaction rules. e.g. Death Guard could have a rule wherein all Power Weapons get the Plague Weapon rule, SWs could have a rule wherein all Power Weapons and Lightning Claws (as appropriate) get the Frost Weapon rule (is it still +1S, or am I thinking of older editions?). Basically, if a faction has access to weapons that are just 'Power Weapon +1', it seems like it would be easier to just make all their power weapons function like that, rather than giving them options they'll never bother with. Hell, this could also be used to give a little boost to low-strength factions like Eldar/DE/Harlequins, which generally never use Power Swords unless they have no other options.

Just a thought.

Mozzamanx wrote:
I've no experience with Apocalypse but that sounds great. Curious if anyone wants to chime in on how they feel about the game and how immersive it still feels.

Apocalypse is an author being given free rein to re-write the 40K ruleset from the ground up, with a consistent scale focused on 2K-and-up battles. All units are organized into formations, with lower requirements than 40K (fewer mandatory troops); each formation has a commander, and units need to stay reasonably near the commander or have to start taking morale checks. Models within a unit are moved in tight cohesion (usually on movement trays), are removed all at once a la Kings of War rather than incrementally losing models, and have a single statline to represent the whole unit. Unit types are divided into Light and Heavy (broadly, infantry vs vehicles); each weapon is rated for AP (vs Light) and AT (vs Heavy). Heavy weapons generally get their own profiles and attacks, while special weapons and basic rifles are abstracted into a Small Arms profile whose AP and AT stats depend on the unit and weapon.

The game uses alternating activation by formation, with all members of a formation given the same order (move + shoot, double move + melee, or stationary but shoot at +1 to hit). Damage is not resolved until after everything activates, so there's no alpha striking, only the 'active' player needs to roll dice, and all you need to know about the target is whether it's Light or Heavy (or has some to-hit penalty in effect). It also uses a mix of D6s and D12s for granularity, with a clever save system where you normally take saves on a D12, but every two wounds gets consolidated into a single D6 roll, so for example a unit that has taken 7 wounds rolls 3 D6s and a D12 for saves.

So a unit of 10 Intercessors shooting a unit of 20 Ork Boyz at 10" makes four Small Arms shots on D6s, hitting on 3s. Since Boyz are 'Light', the Intercessors roll a D12 for each hit against their 5+ AP stat. For each wound, the Orks will subsequently take saves (consolidated as described above) against their 10+ save stat, which in practice means they'll roll either zero dice (if they took an even number of wounds, so all are on D6s) or one die (if there's an odd number, so one left on a D12). If they score two unsaved wounds then the Orks will halve their attacks from that point onwards; if they score four unsaved wounds then the Orks are eliminated. If they survive, then they take a morale check which make result in additional wounds.

Honestly, I think if you play it a bit, you may find that the 'flavor' of 40K comes through from things like Knights stomping on tanks and hordes swarming outnumbered Space Marines- the big picture, if you will- rather than the nitty-gritty details of upgrades. It doesn't allow Your Dudes to get as many bespoke rules, but the result is a clean, fast-playing system that captures the feel of the RT/2nd/3rd box art and lets you play a game involving superheavies and Titans in an afternoon.

If it had just a little more detail at the low end- even just accounting for special weapons in some manner, like upgrading your Small Arms AP stat if you take grenade launchers or AT stat if you take meltaguns- I'd probably use it as a substitute for 40K in the 1K-2K points range.

Apoc does care about heavy weapons - like Lascannons and Missile Launchers, but it folds Grenade Launchers into the lasguns.

One other thing about flavor: there are Command Cards that can also capture the "your dudes" flavor, like the Tallarn have one for flanking a unit, the Cadians have one for rolling d12s to-hit (with the same BS) instead of D6s, etc. So there is some dash of flavor thrown in, but it's not overwhelming.

Furthermore, the cards are randomly drawn into a hand from a deck you yourself built, so they're nothing like Stratagems (and cost nothing to play) and typically work on an entire Detachment (so the whole Cadian detachment rolls D12s instead of D6s, as an example).

Awesome.
This is exactly the mentality I describe when I say that the role and 'feel' of a unit is far, far more important than how many permutations it can be built in.
I'm a firm believer that a small number of dynamic choices makes for far better gameplay than a large number of minor choices. Whether a unit is capable of performing a role at all, rather than whether it performs the role X% better against meta targets.

Continuing my rant is the humble Power Fist Sergeant and whether it is appropriate at all that a Tactical Squad should threaten a Dreadnought. The decision to take a Fist or Sword is not something that defines the unit, but rather its how you round out the last handful of leftover points.
From the perspective of the Dreadnought owner, it feels like the last whims of the list creation are going to change the targets your Dreadnought can engage and unfairly punish you for using the unit in exactly the way it is supposed to be used; as a heavy melee linebreaker.
It feels like a 'Gotcha!' moment that reactively wins the matchup because you had 15pts spare rather than 10, rather than any deliberate choice. Is the Dreadnought pilot even aware that one of his targets has a particularly large hand that is going to be the difference between who wins that matchup?

My point is that the question of choosing the optimal weapon for a matchup should be far less important than whether one unit should just be designed to win that matchup and be left to it.
In this case, I am of the opinion that getting a Dreadnought stuck in and stomping infantry is exactly where it should thrive and it should not be possible to 'buy your way out' because you bought the right filler wargear rather than getting a better matchup.

Mozzamanx wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Apocalypse does exactly that Mozza. A statline is just "melee weapons" or "close combat weapons" or "Captain melee weapons" that might like, wound 1 better on a D12, irrespective of what is modeled.

I've no experience with Apocalypse but that sounds great. Curious if anyone wants to chime in on how they feel about the game and how immersive it still feels.

To continue the 30k analogy, Loken is a major character and has rules in the game. His model is very obviously carrying a Chainsword, because they are cool and he is a typical cool commander.
This particular 'Chainsword' just happens to be AP2, +1s and causes Instant Death on a 6 to wound. There is no lore reason that his Chainsword should have this profile, although you could probably say its Master Crafted. It has this profile because he carries a Chainsword, but a HQ with S4 and no AP is clearly useless.
It's clearly more important that Loken feels like Loken, than a Chainsword feels like a Chainsword. It's also clear that a Chainsword can represent anything from 'nothing' to 'preferred weapon of a senior commander'.

Another thing that really gets on my nads is the need for pistols and grenades to have rules. It's a professional army; of course every single model is going to have grenades. And yet the need to cover this in rules means that A; every single datasheet is needing to carry 4 distinct weapon profiles, and B; any unit without grenades (Tyranids) is absolutely devastated despite being a supposed melee army.
It's like requiring rules for shoes or helmets, it's just an unnecessary level of detail that is so prevalent that it only takes effect when it's not there.

Another one of my favourite games is Dropzone Commander which feels extremely tactical in contrast, despite having much smaller army lists. The reason for this is that the game is heavily abstracted to pretty bare mechanics, but then forces the player to make actual choices in how they move and the units they take. Units are literally incapable of performing actions depending on their type, and this demands that a player takes a balanced list to cover all bases.
There are no semantics about whether this AA gun is a Mk1 or Mk2 or how many barrels the model has, its a case of 'Can it even target aircraft? Can it even damage the target? If yes, its probably your best choice'.

In Loken's crunch profile it's a Paragon Blade. That's why I asked Type40 the question if all his relic blades are explicitly modeled as Swords because there's no profile for anything else.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

In Loken's crunch profile it's a Paragon Blade. That's why I asked Type40 the question if all his relic blades are explicitly modeled as Swords because there's no profile for anything else.

If your standard flighty HQ did not have a large wargear list and instead had a 'Master Crafted Melee Weapon' as set wargear, that dealt a large number of very good attacks, I genuinely believe that I would not notice the difference other than being free to model it however I wanted and the removal of silly business like Smash Captains.
While I acknowledge that the strength probably wouldn't be high enough to seriously threaten vehicles like a Thunder Hammer does, I would also question if its good game design that your HQ can do that to begin with.

If a unit should be capable of doing something, give it the stats to do that role. Don't base their effectiveness within their role on which weapon gives you the best mechanical result for or allow units to fulfil radically different roles based on your specific build of them. Especially when that specific build is dependent on your specific subfaction or arbitrary, out-of-universe rules abstraction.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The 3050 thing is an entirely different issue, that's far more akin to something like the End Times than anything Marine related, the Clan invasion heralded a massive lore change while also introducing a ton of power bloat. While it's fair to point out that a quarter century later it's probably not worth still being mad about, but I don't think that's the same thing as making the point that if some units can share a unit entry, they should, and that having special extra unit entries just for the sake of having additional pagespace isn't actually contributing much to flavor in and of itself.

I can see your End Times point, but it's not to the same degree, as End Times changed everything, right down to the core mechanics of the game. The Clans did not do such a thing. They just added more stuff into the game.

And this is why I make the comparison. Since 8th began GW has added more stuff to Marines more than any other faction, but how much of that more stuff is too much is only decided on an individual level. If it is too much for someone, then they, as I argued with BTech, they can ignore it. They don't have to use Primaris stuff, as I didn't for all of last Edition.

Setting aside the earlier points, I think in the case of 40k, it's a lot harder to ignore it. When other factions *are* losing stuff, even if we don't want to talk about FW (which I think isn't fair, but I'll set that aside), if armies like Dark Eldar are being cut to the bone, that should probably be addressed before coming out with a gazillion new Marine books and sub-faction rules. Additionally, there are no "eras" or "locales" to really restrict stuff, events are open to and allow everything, and people will have to deal with and face everything and keep up on those rules and with an array of sub-faction books adding tons of special rules and abilities to minor small niche factions it's hard to keep up. It also doesn't help that mainstays of older editions are often being actively pushed out. More to the point, the power level and divergence in basic troop capabilities is becoming a real issue. When the basic Marine is now W2, and needs a half page to print all the text for all their special rules and abilities, it's excessive. GW's need to have and differentiate so many microfactions drives that power level up in an attempt to justify their special-ness. It also takes up gobs of marketing pipeline that other stuff can't occupy because retail sales markets don't maximize profit by dumping lots of unrelated releases in a week.

I don't like that Necrons have vehicles with crew. I don't like that Tyranids have special characters. I'm not demanding that these things be removed form the game for "consolidation" purposes or any other reason. I'll just choose to not use them, and I certainly wouldn't expect my own problems with these units to be mandatory for other players.

I don't think that's really the issue here, or at least that I've been arguing for. I don't have a problem with people running all the new models. I have an issue with the idea that they all need super unique datasheets and rulesets to be portrayed accurately, and I have an issue with GW trying to make microfactions and units that all fundamentally do the same thing in mostly the same way appear to be radically different unique things when they're not. To use an easier example than the bikes one that's been bandied about, do we really need a unique Heavy Intercessor Captain datasheet?

The Leman Russ used to have different entries for different types of Russ tank, they all got consolidated into one, even though some had different armor values or weapons options. There used to be separate army lists for IG Armoured Companies, several in fact, including a unique DKoK one. Stromtroopers used to be an Elites unit that sometimes had an option to take as Troops and sometimes had to be finagled as Grenadier vets but had options to make elite carapace guard infantry and eventually got rolled into their own codex as Scions. These options all just got baked into normal simple codex entries and options. I don't recall anyone bemoaning the great loss of IG diversity and options for this. I think GW actually did a good job in this regard there. I like the way GW handled that.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Another place where this doesn't work is that 40k does mean for everything to be used at the same time, nothing is broken up into eras or locales, and the game tries to incorporate and portray things so small that Battletech really doesn't concern itself with (like an individual Grot and the grot's sidearm) as well as units much larger than what Battletech typically concerns itself with (such as a Warlord Titan standing more than twice the height of an Atlas).

But that's the point! That's how they chose to deal with all those extras. They didn't consolidate them, they split them up into more manageable eras. They didn't take stuff away. The people in this thread are arguing for fewer options. Not more. C'mon Vaktathi. We've been at this website for years. I seem to remember you lamenting the loss of the 3.5 Chaos Codex. Why would you ever want any other faction to go through the same thing as us Chaos players did at the start of 4th?

Two parts here. First, I acknowledge there were issues with the 3.5 codex and it had some things that needed toning down. For my Iron Warriors, a couple FoC swap options with an option to take an Vindicator (later added to the entire CSM army) or a Basilisk, and Siege Specialists giving them an Ld boost in fortifications, worked pretty well for faction differentiation and was more than enough to make it one of the most powerful armies of the era, and it all fit on one page (it also prevented you from taking certain things). Relative to what *far* smaller (and in most cases ostensibly Codex-Adherent) loyalist Chapters are receiving these days that's extremely minor. I didn't need an entire faction sub-book with a gazillion special rules and stratagems or unique special units and a grip of characters. Second, the problem with the 4E codex was that it just ripped out everything without even making a minimal effort at minor subfaction functionality, while also introducing a ton of new fractured and incomplete lore issues (e.g. why could there be Cult power armored troops but not proper Cult terminators?) on top and basically ignoring the Legion in its lore and heavily featuring more recent Renegades, there were a multitude of issue with that book beyond just a lack of Legion rules.

At one point an IW specific codex probably would have made me real giddy, sure. At this point, I'm really ok with how they're handled with the current CSM book, that's enough for me, my bigger issues are with the CSM faction as a whole being an awkward step child.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I'll also note that while Battletech has gobs of mechs, those mechs are all basically built according to a set of universal rules by which anyone can make any mech they want within the given guidelines...

This is an interesting point (that I'm cutting down for brevity). If 40k had a universal set of "design rules" (that need not be public, mind you - it can just be an internal thing) that was as well crafted and robust as BTech's, then I think the game would improve dramatically. But even with this system, the folks creating new 'Mechs still make things that are redundant, or similar, because that's how the universe works. I don't see why 40k or any wargame would be any different

Sure, but its not the same problem if they're redundant or similar in that setting as faction balance and flavor isn't defined in the same way by the mechs and people can make whatever they want anyway, the game by default is built around "take whatever you want within these space and weight limitations", and isn't building factions around minor unit subvariants or differentiating factions the way 40k with different individual combat capability. Everyone can take an Atlas, everyone can take infantry hordes, and everything in between, and nobody is making entire faction books devoted to forces that only field the Atlas, and different variations or customizations of the Atlas are treated as swap options not as whole new unit entries (IIRC at least).

 Vaktathi wrote:
They'll give you background, unit compositions, history, character info, etc, but something like the 1st Marik Protectors release isn't dumping huge amounts of special rules or unique units into the game either.

Well, that's not quite true. Yes, everything stems from the same basic core design rules, but they have introduced new units for specific factions. The Clans are the obvious and overwhelming example, but I'm thinking the Word of Blake. Their Celestial line of 'Mechs - again, fully acknowledging that they exist within the same basic design rules - were different enough from everyone else, using some new rules (not many) they invented for those units. Those rules have since been incorporated into the general design rules, so that anyone can use the tech the Wobbies had, but they do do unique forces for factions, however rare that might be.

Anything post 3067 I'll cop to being unfamiliar with and can't talk much to. While the Clans introduced new units for specific factions, this was pretty much "clans vs inner sphere", and still followed the same basic design principles they just got stuff that was all straight up better in every way, at the cost of *ostensibly* being costlier to bring to the table, and it's not hard to see where some of the bitterness came from that for some of the same reasons being mentioned here, but in general all that boils down to is "clan" or "inner sphere", and even then it's possible for both sides to have units or tech from each other through salvage, capture, old stockpiles (in the Clans case), etc. Everyone can get everything, at least on some level, faction doesn't have anywhere near as large a role to play in balance and what is available to you in Btech the way it is in 40k (at least, from what I recall of pre-3067 BT), and significant customization and overlap between mechs just doesn't cause the issues it does with 40k.

I'd like to make the argument that the consolidation that this thread is advocating for runs a very real risk of turning out as D&D 4e did. 4e was objectively more balanced and better suited to being played on a grid than 3.x was while also requiring less work on the part of the DM; yet it was rejected by the community. Better, in some specific way, isn't always what the community wants.

To this day I'd rather play 3.x or 2e than either 4e or 5e. I like their flawed ambition and feel that too many games since value balance and ease of play over given players options and trusting them to find what works for their table.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
I'd like to make the argument that the consolidation that this thread is advocating for runs a very real risk of turning out as D&D 4e did. 4e was objectively more balanced and better suited to being played on a grid than 3.x was while also requiring less work on the part of the DM; yet it was rejected by the community. Better, in some specific way, isn't always what the community wants.

To this day I'd rather play 3.x or 2e than either 4e or 5e. I like their flawed ambition and feel that too many games since value balance and ease of play over given players options and trusting them to find what works for their table.

4es flaw wasn't the rules (except a poorly balanced first monster manual). It was presentation. 5e is mostly just 4e. It just has an added layer of fluff hiding the mechanics to make it more palitable. Nobody is suggesting to kill the fluff. In fact, I have mentioned a couple times that I want little side bars in my codex telling me about things like screamer killers and presenting me the build that represents them.

Likewise, I would love it if the SM codex in the SW section took a unified "outrider" datasheet and showed which options to grab to represent TWC with a picture of them and some fluff explaining why the SW do things this way.

The fluff should be there with the tools. It just doesn't need to be done with bespoke bs.

In fact, doing it that way means that when the eventual old marine purge happens the SW players can still stick some primaris on some wolves and the book itself would just be supporting that.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
I'd like to make the argument that the consolidation that this thread is advocating for runs a very real risk of turning out as D&D 4e did. 4e was objectively more balanced and better suited to being played on a grid than 3.x was while also requiring less work on the part of the DM; yet it was rejected by the community. Better, in some specific way, isn't always what the community wants.

To this day I'd rather play 3.x or 2e than either 4e or 5e. I like their flawed ambition and feel that too many games since value balance and ease of play over given players options and trusting them to find what works for their table.

I honestly find 5E is a nice balance between 3.5 and the need for simplification, I quite like it. (but I LIKE bounded accuracy as it means from a DM's POV I can use enemies longer without "gee those orks are now all level 15 barbarians.. odd that!")

 Lance845 wrote:
4es flaw wasn't the rules (except a poorly balanced first monster manual).

The balance, while objectively better, was still just as broken as previous editions. Need I remind you of the errata needed to end a plethora of infinite combos and changes so that forced movement didn't trigger movement-based effects. Its rules were all kinds of flawed even if they did fix the problem of linear fighters and quadratic wizards.

5e is mostly just 4e. It just has an added layer of fluff hiding the mechanics to make it more palatable.

Which is why I dislike 5e. I can't build the same depth and breadth of characters in 5e that I could build in 3.x and given that WotC seems hellbent on printing only adventure modules and setting books I don't think we'll ever get there.

Just as an example can I build a 5e necromancer that controls a horde of undead? How about a creature that steals knowledge and skills from the enemies they've killed? Playing as a monster with a full level progression system and rules that allow me to use any monster in the game as a player character? I want all of that and more from 5e before I'll consider playing it. Why should I lose features I enjoyed just so plebs don't have to learn the mechanics of a more complex game?

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
4es flaw wasn't the rules (except a poorly balanced first monster manual).

The balance, while objectively better, was still just as broken as previous editions. Need I remind you of the errata needed to end a plethora of infinite combos and changes so that forced movement didn't trigger movement-based effects. Its rules were all kinds of flawed even if they did fix the problem of linear fighters and quadratic wizards.

5e is mostly just 4e. It just has an added layer of fluff hiding the mechanics to make it more palatable.

Which is why I dislike 5e. I can't build the same depth and breadth of characters in 5e that I could build in 3.x and given that WotC seems hellbent on printing only adventure modules and setting books I don't think we'll ever get there.

Just as an example can I build a 5e necromancer that controls a horde of undead? How about a creature that steals knowledge and skills from the enemies they've killed? Playing as a monster with a full level progression system and rules that allow me to use any monster in the game as a player character? I want all of that and more from 5e before I'll consider playing it. Why should I lose features I enjoyed just so plebs don't have to learn the mechanics of a more complex game?

Because those features sent balance down the crapper.

Though that's not really right-you can play 3.P all you want. Just so long as you accept that it's not getting new content, and 5E is.

BrianDavion wrote:
I honestly find 5E is a nice balance between 3.5 and the need for simplification, I quite like it. (but I LIKE bounded accuracy as it means from a DM's POV I can use enemies longer without "gee those orks are now all level 15 barbarians.. odd that!")

I never had that issue as a DM. The higher-level characters shouldn't still be fighting the same low-level threats they were at low levels, at high levels the threat of those monsters should be what the political cost of eliminating them will be or that their gods may take notice of the players and make their lives a living hell because of that.

Also, what were your solutions to the plethora of options lost between editions? Many, many builds that I found fun in 3.5 simply don't work in 5e.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Because those features sent balance down the crapper.

Why was that an issue?

Though that's not really right-you can play 3.P all you want. Just so long as you accept that it's not getting new content, and 5E is.

People who want fewer options in 40k can also go back to older editions where the current options didn't exist. If it's good for the goose it must be good for the gander, right?

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
4es flaw wasn't the rules (except a poorly balanced first monster manual).

The balance, while objectively better, was still just as broken as previous editions. Need I remind you of the errata needed to end a plethora of infinite combos and changes so that forced movement didn't trigger movement-based effects. Its rules were all kinds of flawed even if they did fix the problem of linear fighters and quadratic wizards.

5e is mostly just 4e. It just has an added layer of fluff hiding the mechanics to make it more palatable.

Which is why I dislike 5e. I can't build the same depth and breadth of characters in 5e that I could build in 3.x and given that WotC seems hellbent on printing only adventure modules and setting books I don't think we'll ever get there.

Just as an example can I build a 5e necromancer that controls a horde of undead? How about a creature that steals knowledge and skills from the enemies they've killed? Playing as a monster with a full level progression system and rules that allow me to use any monster in the game as a player character? I want all of that and more from 5e before I'll consider playing it. Why should I lose features I enjoyed just so plebs don't have to learn the mechanics of a more complex game?

And yet YOUR dislike of 5e doesn't stop it from being the most popular version of the game that has ever existed. This is your analogy man. The simplification that you were saying could be a bad thing is exactly what has made it such a popular and profitable product.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
4es flaw wasn't the rules (except a poorly balanced first monster manual).

The balance, while objectively better, was still just as broken as previous editions. Need I remind you of the errata needed to end a plethora of infinite combos and changes so that forced movement didn't trigger movement-based effects. Its rules were all kinds of flawed even if they did fix the problem of linear fighters and quadratic wizards.

5e is mostly just 4e. It just has an added layer of fluff hiding the mechanics to make it more palatable.

Which is why I dislike 5e. I can't build the same depth and breadth of characters in 5e that I could build in 3.x and given that WotC seems hellbent on printing only adventure modules and setting books I don't think we'll ever get there.

Just as an example can I build a 5e necromancer that controls a horde of undead? How about a creature that steals knowledge and skills from the enemies they've killed? Playing as a monster with a full level progression system and rules that allow me to use any monster in the game as a player character? I want all of that and more from 5e before I'll consider playing it. Why should I lose features I enjoyed just so plebs don't have to learn the mechanics of a more complex game?

And yet YOUR dislike of 5e doesn't stop it from being the most popular version of the game that has ever existed. This is your analogy man. The simplification that you were saying could be a bad thing is exactly what has made it such a popular and profitable product.

yeah except one thing that always sells with D&D has been new supplements and sphlat books. you know.. the "bloat" that so many people here cry about. If I play d&d it's entirely possiable that I need 3 or more books to make my char.

 Lance845 wrote:
And yet YOUR dislike of 5e doesn't stop it from being the most popular version of the game that has ever existed. This is your analogy man. The simplification that you were saying could be a bad thing is exactly what has made it such a popular and profitable product.

I'm not convinced that 5e is popular because of the rules. Unlike previous versions of the game it had a lot of endorsement from online voices such as Critical Role as well as a prominent feature in Stranger Things. It was no longer seen as something only for nerds or seen through the lens of the satanic panic. I could be wrong, but even if I am, I'm not sure how it applies to 40k where you can't just role up a new character when the new edition removes options you used to use.

Squatting models and their rules isn't ideal for anybody and, as 4e showed, there's nothing to say that doing it will lead to sales.

EDIT: We also don't know that 5e has sold more books total than prior editions, we know its sold more PHBs but 5e has 13 total books whereas 3.x had 69 plus tons of 3rd party due to the magic of OGL. 5e just doesn't have a lot to sell a customer willing to buy.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
4es flaw wasn't the rules (except a poorly balanced first monster manual).

The balance, while objectively better, was still just as broken as previous editions. Need I remind you of the errata needed to end a plethora of infinite combos and changes so that forced movement didn't trigger movement-based effects. Its rules were all kinds of flawed even if they did fix the problem of linear fighters and quadratic wizards.

5e is mostly just 4e. It just has an added layer of fluff hiding the mechanics to make it more palatable.

Which is why I dislike 5e. I can't build the same depth and breadth of characters in 5e that I could build in 3.x and given that WotC seems hellbent on printing only adventure modules and setting books I don't think we'll ever get there.

Just as an example can I build a 5e necromancer that controls a horde of undead? How about a creature that steals knowledge and skills from the enemies they've killed? Playing as a monster with a full level progression system and rules that allow me to use any monster in the game as a player character? I want all of that and more from 5e before I'll consider playing it. Why should I lose features I enjoyed just so plebs don't have to learn the mechanics of a more complex game?

And yet YOUR dislike of 5e doesn't stop it from being the most popular version of the game that has ever existed. This is your analogy man. The simplification that you were saying could be a bad thing is exactly what has made it such a popular and profitable product.

yeah except one thing that always sells with D&D has been new supplements and sphlat books. you know.. the "bloat" that so many people here cry about. If I play d&d it's entirely possiable that I need 3 or more books to make my char.

Really? Because the super specific stuff from 3.x were the worst selling things they ever produced. Sandstorm and other related products that offered super specific equipment, feats, and prestige classes that dealt specifically with niche things. These are the books that basically killed 3rd. The generalist things that have applications in lots of situations are the ones that keep on selling.