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.

Just ones that are so similar to their generic counterparts that they may as well just be generic. Of the top of my head, Tabletop tactics talked about a bunch of space wolf characters that don’t do anything unique while competing with Ragnar for a slot, things like that. Grand master voldus also comes to mind. Mind you this is not exclusive to marines, but named characters really pad out the marine books in number of pages.

Dandelion wrote:
Just ones that are so similar to their generic counterparts that they may as well just be generic. Of the top of my head, Tabletop tactics talked about a bunch of space wolf characters that don’t do anything unique while competing with Ragnar for a slot, things like that. Grand master voldus also comes to mind. Mind you this is not exclusive to marines, but named characters really pad out the marine books in number of pages.

What's sad about this is that I feel like the named characters have been slowly getting more and more vanilla in general (for all factions).
But I agree. Especially in 9th, you do not have excess HQ slots like 8th...
Either make them special/unique or ill play the model as a regular cpt/librarian/farseer or w/e ...

Again, my argument this entire thread is not to remove unique rules... but if there arn't any on the sheet at all... well ...

Now saying that. with the wolves, I would much rather they got more unique and have them do something that stands out then just remove them... but the time for focusing on a power armor faction isn't now and other armies need the spotlight.

Dandelion wrote:
Just ones that are so similar to their generic counterparts that they may as well just be generic. Of the top of my head, Tabletop tactics talked about a bunch of space wolf characters that don’t do anything unique while competing with Ragnar for a slot, things like that. Grand master voldus also comes to mind. Mind you this is not exclusive to marines, but named characters really pad out the marine books in number of pages.

they where proably talking about Krom. even among space wolf players he's basicly considered to be "discount ragnar" I kinda suspect they started off making a "plastic ragnar" with him and then internally it was decided to make him another character.

Dandelion wrote:
Before this thread moves on too quickly, I would like to say that I want more customizable options for the sake of having customizable options. Restricted units and characters are generally boring and frustrating to use imo. Unique rules are just kinda bleh imo.

Completely agree. I thought the Cryptek Arcana for Necrons was at least a step in the right direction. But yeah, in general I'd like to see much more in the way of character customisation.

I thought one of the best ideas was what they did with Harlequins - letting each of the characters swap out their aura or signature ability for a different one, to give them a different role.

 Type40 wrote:

Yes, customization for the sake of it,, sure 100% , but lets not pretend design space would increase because of it,,, cuz it wont.. But because you WANT customization... sure ! I get you

I think customisation potentially can open up at least some design space.

As a example, Primaris have next to no customisation and so every configuration of wargear requires a separate model and separate dataslate. If instead some models were simply able to swap weapons, you could cut down on both without actually losing any options.

It would be like if a SM Devastator squad could only be modelled with Lascannons, and if you wanted Plasma Cannons you instead needed to buy entirely separate models (which are called Blastinators) or if you prefer Heavy Bolters then you instead need a Bolternator squad (again with separate models) etc.

 Type40 wrote:

What's sad about this is that I feel like the named characters have been slowly getting more and more vanilla in general (for all factions).
But I agree. Especially in 9th, you do not have excess HQ slots like 8th...

Regarding special characters, I've often wondered whether it would be better to 'build' them from generic characters via wargear, artefacts, and/or warlord traits.

So rather than every character needing their own dataslate with unique rules, wargear and weapons to show how extra super special they are, they'd instead be given as a particular combination of wargear for a generic character.

Special Characters should be stuff that is truly unique like Guilliman.

When you have special characters that are just generic character+1 its feel a little bit boring. Sadly GW and many , many people love their special characters with names so it is not gonna change.

And I know that as a ruler writters, writting your own special characters with background and some special rules that you can make their own "package" instead of oppening up to the wild so they can be broken is also fun.

Right. With different chapter tactics. Thats correct. Thats what the entire game is like outside of your bubble. It works fine for everyone else.

For what everyone? marines of different kinds have different rules and different units others don't have access to.

Right. The illusion of choice. I already went over this. The illusion of choice exists NOW. You already have it with your tons of wargear options and your tons of units. Actual meaningful choices that don't create the illusion of choice will only happen with consolidation.

How is being able to take TWC and not being able to take TWC an illusion of choice? Also it is a safety mechanism too. If lets say 6 months in the future GW brings out the WS supplement and outriders become OP, and GW went you way of streamlining with TWC being outridders. then someone who wanted to play TWC would be hit by the anti ouridders nerfs. I know it, because that is how the gulliman "fix" or the rule of 3 hit Grey Knights.

Do you mean what happens now and has always happened? This isn't a result of consolidation. This is a result of bad balance. Or do you not remember the last few years leviathan dreads?

I don't care if it is the cause of bad balance, GW design philosophy or the design team being a hell cult living out of people anger. I don't want my army to be nerf, and have units removed just so other peoples can get more stuff of theirs. I fully support people wanting to get more stuff and having more things to use. That is great, but the idea that because some people want their corsair and chaos IG armies now all marines should be one army is stupid.
And yeah I remember the last year pre covid. I had a friend chased out of the game by donkey-caves, because he picked Iron Hands as his army at the start of 8th, and while no one cared about his fun in the game till 2.0, everyone else got very interested in theirs when his army made out of 2 dark empire suddenly became WAAC incarnate.

If 8th ed, specialy its end, tought me anything is that, people like to talk a lot about balance and fun, casual games, but in the end they care about their armies. You want streamline lets start with your army, and after a year or two we can think if we can do it for other people too.

What is the point of even saying this? Is this not what happens now when players want to paint their dudes how they want but want access to the character/rules in another SM faction? Hey guys I modeled x chapter but they suck so I am playing them as Y chapter.

Only if you don't paint your models the right way, you can't play pink dark angles. you can play ink successor, but then you are skiping all special characers and often relics, unless you pay extra .

 vipoid wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
Before this thread moves on too quickly, I would like to say that I want more customizable options for the sake of having customizable options. Restricted units and characters are generally boring and frustrating to use imo. Unique rules are just kinda bleh imo.

Completely agree. I thought the Cryptek Arcana for Necrons was at least a step in the right direction. But yeah, in general I'd like to see much more in the way of character customisation.

I thought one of the best ideas was what they did with Harlequins - letting each of the characters swap out their aura or signature ability for a different one, to give them a different role.

The changes to harlequins was super fun !
However, it did drastically increase the amount of balancing maintenance and design time needed for when this army even has minor changes.
This is ok though because harlies only had 7-8 units anyways, so even with an exponential claim to design space, it is totally resonable.
Doing something like this for SMs without losing any of the unique abilities on their generic would be incredibly difficult to initially balance and further maintain due to the sheer size and amount of options. .

 Type40 wrote:

Yes, customization for the sake of it,, sure 100% , but lets not pretend design space would increase because of it,,, cuz it wont.. But because you WANT customization... sure ! I get you

I think customisation potentially can open up at least some design space.

As a example, Primaris have next to no customisation and so every configuration of wargear requires a separate model and separate dataslate. If instead some models were simply able to swap weapons, you could cut down on both without actually losing any options.

It would be like if a SM Devastator squad could only be modelled with Lascannons, and if you wanted Plasma Cannons you instead needed to buy entirely separate models (which are called Blastinators) or if you prefer Heavy Bolters then you instead need a Bolternator squad (again with separate models) etc.

The problem is, each of these units have different special rules, so this would mean every piece of wargear you added as an option would not have to balanced up against the rules of each other version. Unless wargear was restricted by what special rules your allowing that unit to make use of. But at the point you havn't actually changed anything but how the data is presented. No extra resources are freed in this way other then maybe a bit of paper but even then you just doubled/trippleled the size of the datasheet explaining the exceptions, affordances, exra rules and wargear. Now, acknowledging that this is just presentation of data and nothing more with that solution, I can see how some people would like a datasheet like this, but I honestly think static sheets are just easier for new palyers,,, if its not going to make a difference for design space, why change the ,admittedly slightly, more readable option.

 Type40 wrote:

What's sad about this is that I feel like the named characters have been slowly getting more and more vanilla in general (for all factions).
But I agree. Especially in 9th, you do not have excess HQ slots like 8th...

Regarding special characters, I've often wondered whether it would be better to 'build' them from generic characters via wargear, artefacts, and/or warlord traits.

So rather than every character needing their own dataslate with unique rules, wargear and weapons to show how extra super special they are, they'd instead be given as a particular combination of wargear for a generic character.

Totally a fun idea. I am not saying this wouldn't be cool and honestly, I feel a bit of this coming out in crusade... Now there are balancing and design issues out the wazoo on this. Along with premade named characters in RT, there were rules for what you jsut described... but i think you could also roll d100s for the traits... So cool and sooo fluffy IMO ... BUT I don't think GW would ever do this. 1 everyone would just play the 'best' character min/maxed and as soon as they fix the balance they would move onto the next best composition.

So lets use the harlequins as an example .
Before PA what GW had to keep in balance and determine worth for was the following
Troupe Masters had solid stats (represented as TM), 1 solid ability (represented as ability [a]) and 4 wargear options (represented as wargear (a-d)).
Also strats, interaction with nearby units, chapter tactics, and various other factors.
However, I will explain this example with just abilities and wargear options for simplicity.

The designers must determine point cost and ability strength for the following situations

1: TM Ability (a) + weapon (a)
2: TM Ability (a) + weapon (b)
3: TM Ability (a) + weapon (c)
4: TM Ability (a) + weapon (d)

So when figuring out what the ability should do and any point costs there are a certain amount of considerations to be based on the possibilities a player might pick. Of course this array can have been expanded further for synergetic units, stratagems, chapter tactics and etc.
After PA this simple set of examples has increased exponentially. due to access to the new pivitol roles AND especially because there can be two at once or just one. (lets represent this combination potential as ability(x)(x) and the abilities as (a-d))

TM Ability (a) + weapon (a)
TM Ability (a) + weapon (b)
TM Ability (a) + weapon (c)
TM Ability (a) + weapon (d)

TM Ability (b) + weapon (a)
TM Ability (b) + weapon (b)
TM Ability (b) + weapon (c)
TM Ability (b) + weapon (d)

TM Ability (c) + weapon (a)
TM Ability (c) + weapon (b)
TM Ability (c) + weapon (c)
TM Ability (c) + weapon (d)

TM Ability (d) + weapon (a)
TM Ability (d) + weapon (b)
TM Ability (d) + weapon (c)
TM Ability (d) + weapon (d)

TM Ability (a)(b) + weapon (a)
TM Ability (a)(b) + weapon (b)
TM Ability (a)(b) + weapon (c)
TM Ability (a)(b) + weapon (d)

TM Ability (a)(c) + weapon (a)
TM Ability (a)(c) + weapon (b)
TM Ability (a)(c) + weapon (c)
TM Ability (a)(c) + weapon (d)

TM Ability (a)(d) + weapon (a)
TM Ability (a)(d) + weapon (b)
TM Ability (a)(d) + weapon (c)
TM Ability (a)(d) + weapon (d)

After PA the considerations made about how much costs/how powerful abilties should be just with wargear has exponentially increased... not to mention extra layers like chapter tactics, access to stratagems and etc etc...
The initial balancing is a pain and exponentially longer, but then to go further as soon as a resource cost or rules change happens to any of these variables, the designers have to recheck each other corresponding variable to ensure nothing has broken. Thus balancing maintenance of any kind has just, also, exponentially increased.
On top of this, harlequins are quite simple compared to SMs with access to all the customization in the game...

Sure it would be fun, but the amount of extra work and extra design space taken would be staggering.
I think it was appropriate for harlequins... but i think people underestimate jsut HOW much work went into making the harlequins that customizable and that cool. I for one went from feeling like it was a half assed faction to being a solid stand alone faction after PA (minus the gate, for the love of god fix the gate) . The harlies went from feeling like they had absolutely no options and 7 units to effectively feeling like they had like 30+ units and possible synergies coming out of their wazoo... appropriate for such a small faction,,, inappropriate for marines,,, they have enough.

 vipoid wrote:
Regarding special characters, I've often wondered whether it would be better to 'build' them from generic characters via wargear, artefacts, and/or warlord traits.

So rather than every character needing their own dataslate with unique rules, wargear and weapons to show how extra super special they are, they'd instead be given as a particular combination of wargear for a generic character.

That would be completely lame. Who would need special characters then? Just slap three generic ones on table, done. No, special characters as it is (with some unique bonus) work far better, because if the default blandness doesn't work for your leader idea, you can always count him as one of the specials to make him fit better. Your librarian of novamarines is a prodigy? Use Tigurius. Captain of Black Dragons uses flamer to fit dragon image? Use Adrax. Etc, etc.

I like how people spoiled for choice talk they have too much of it, when addition of two special characters was frankly one of few strong points of turning DW into supplement. After years and years and years of maximum blandness due to extreme DW writer incompetence, finally there is an option of having better chaplain or librarian than bottom of the barrel bland and generic garbage. Try playing army with few options for a time, then you can say choice is bad.

Special characters are keyword locked now, whereas they used to be available for anyone. So just “use tigurius” is a bad example because I don’t want to be locked into ultramarine rules.

Besides I play admech, not exactly spoiled for choice, eh? If I could, I would turn cawl into an archmagos datasheet in a heartbeat. At this point he doesn’t need new war gear, i just want to run an archmagos for my deimos army without having to use mars.

 Irbis wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Regarding special characters, I've often wondered whether it would be better to 'build' them from generic characters via wargear, artefacts, and/or warlord traits.

So rather than every character needing their own dataslate with unique rules, wargear and weapons to show how extra super special they are, they'd instead be given as a particular combination of wargear for a generic character.

That would be completely lame. Who would need special characters then?

In a large way, I think that's the point, most of them aren't actually really all that special, just get some minor wargear combo not available to a generic version or get an extra power bonus just to justify them being a unique entry, without actually doing anything truly unique and otherwise serving the exact same role as their more generic equivalent.

Just slap three generic ones on table, done. No, special characters as it is (with some unique bonus) work far better, because if the default blandness doesn't work for your leader idea, you can always count him as one of the specials to make him fit better. Your librarian of novamarines is a prodigy? Use Tigurius.

If this is the use case we're going for, then I'd argue that Tigurius isn't unique, he's functionally being treated as a generic Librarian+1, and that can (and has) been captured within generic Librarian entries (e.g. Lexicanums vs Codiciers vs Epistolaries vs Chief Librarian).

To my mind special characters should completely alter how you build your list and play on the board. This is obviously difficult - especially if you are a faction with a veritable shopping list of such characters - but otherwise you end up with "this is a regular character but he has this special rule for X more points". Which means its now an auto/never take if you were going to use that regular character.

Tyel wrote:
To my mind special characters should completely alter how you build your list and play on the board. This is obviously difficult - especially if you are a faction with a veritable shopping list of such characters - but otherwise you end up with "this is a regular character but he has this special rule for X more points". Which means its now an auto/never take if you were going to use that regular character.

I'll be honest, I have the exact opposite view. I absolutely despise when a certain playstyle is locked behind a special character..

For me, special characters drive the stories.

For example, I set my campaign on the Western Fringe because I KNEW I wanted to use Taddeus the Purifier, Pious Vorne, and Gotfret de Montbard.

They can stop over in our star system and join our armies for a few small battles on their way to the BSF. These would be battles of opportunity- at this stage, the Sisters army is small, and not prestigious enough for the Heroes to join full time.

Then, once the BSF storyline is finished, they can return to our system and perhaps become a more permanent part of the army; by the time they get back, the Sisters Crusade will have grown and earned prestige by bringing Saint Katherine's Praesidium Protectiva back into the Imperial fold to form the Triumph.

That's the kind of army worthy Taddeus and his disciples. And by the time this happens, their enemies will have grown more powerful, and they will need Taddeus and the crew.

PenitentJake wrote:
For me, special characters drive the stories.

For me special characters seem to drive far too many stories.

In fact, given their recurrence, it seems every major conflict might as well be happening on and around the same 5 or 6 planets, while the rest of the galaxy might as well not exist for all the difference it makes.


However, I realise I'm in a clear minority on this one.

Can special characters drive their own stories without rendering generic characters irrelevant by having better/cheaper rules and doing the things the generic characters aren't allowed to do?

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Can special characters drive their own stories without rendering generic characters irrelevant by having better/cheaper rules and doing the things the generic characters aren't allowed to do?

If we enter in the competitive aspect to be honest special characters are inferior version of more customisable generic ones 90% of the time. This is like FW. People claim special characters are OP because two or three are powerfull ignoring than most of the rest are mediocre so taken just for narrative reasons.

 Galas wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Can special characters drive their own stories without rendering generic characters irrelevant by having better/cheaper rules and doing the things the generic characters aren't allowed to do?

If we enter in the competitive aspect to be honest special characters are inferior version of more customisable generic ones 90% of the time. This is like FW. People claim special characters are OP because two or three are powerfull ignoring than most of the rest are mediocre so taken just for narrative reasons.

Which goes back into why these bespoke sheets while looking like more choices are actually the illusion of choice and why having more datasheets, especially bespoke ones, are not easier to balance by any means.

If you have 4 different kinds of librarians but one is just by far the best then you really just have 1 librarian thats worth taking. And the fact that we keep running into this over and over and over again means the balance is very out of whack. Trim the fat. Give everyone more actual options.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Can special characters drive their own stories without rendering generic characters irrelevant by having better/cheaper rules and doing the things the generic characters aren't allowed to do?

If we enter in the competitive aspect to be honest special characters are inferior version of more customisable generic ones 90% of the time. This is like FW. People claim special characters are OP because two or three are powerfull ignoring than most of the rest are mediocre so taken just for narrative reasons.

Which goes back into why these bespoke sheets while looking like more choices are actually the illusion of choice and why having more datasheets, especially bespoke ones, are not easier to balance by any means.

If you have 4 different kinds of librarians but one is just by far the best then you really just have 1 librarian thats worth taking. And the fact that we keep running into this over and over and over again means the balance is very out of whack. Trim the fat. Give everyone more actual options.

trimming the fat doesn't mean more options, it just means less options.

Besides let's take this mentality to the hilt. If one army is better then every other army, via your logic the answer is obviously "squat the inferior armies"

BrianDavion wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Can special characters drive their own stories without rendering generic characters irrelevant by having better/cheaper rules and doing the things the generic characters aren't allowed to do?

If we enter in the competitive aspect to be honest special characters are inferior version of more customisable generic ones 90% of the time. This is like FW. People claim special characters are OP because two or three are powerfull ignoring than most of the rest are mediocre so taken just for narrative reasons.

Which goes back into why these bespoke sheets while looking like more choices are actually the illusion of choice and why having more datasheets, especially bespoke ones, are not easier to balance by any means.

If you have 4 different kinds of librarians but one is just by far the best then you really just have 1 librarian thats worth taking. And the fact that we keep running into this over and over and over again means the balance is very out of whack. Trim the fat. Give everyone more actual options.

trimming the fat doesn't mean more options, it just means less options.

Besides let's take this mentality to the hilt. If one army is better then every other army, via your logic the answer is obviously "squat the inferior armies"

I am not explaining the illusion of choice to you again.

I am not responding to absurd arguments either.

 Lance845 wrote:
I am not explaining the illusion of choice to you again.

I am not responding to absurd arguments either.

What is the difference between removing options within an army and genericizing rules between armies? You keep asserting that comparing the two is absurd but have yet to explain why.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Can special characters drive their own stories without rendering generic characters irrelevant by having better/cheaper rules and doing the things the generic characters aren't allowed to do?

If we enter in the competitive aspect to be honest special characters are inferior version of more customisable generic ones 90% of the time. This is like FW. People claim special characters are OP because two or three are powerfull ignoring than most of the rest are mediocre so taken just for narrative reasons.

Which goes back into why these bespoke sheets while looking like more choices are actually the illusion of choice and why having more datasheets, especially bespoke ones, are not easier to balance by any means.

If you have 4 different kinds of librarians but one is just by far the best then you really just have 1 librarian thats worth taking. And the fact that we keep running into this over and over and over again means the balance is very out of whack. Trim the fat. Give everyone more actual options.

It doesn't mater what options you have. The people who always take the best stuff will take the best stuff whether they do what your suggesting or not. sure no named character, whats the best of the "more actual options" your proposing, they'll only take that instead.. you point is moot.

 Type40 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Can special characters drive their own stories without rendering generic characters irrelevant by having better/cheaper rules and doing the things the generic characters aren't allowed to do?

If we enter in the competitive aspect to be honest special characters are inferior version of more customisable generic ones 90% of the time. This is like FW. People claim special characters are OP because two or three are powerfull ignoring than most of the rest are mediocre so taken just for narrative reasons.

Which goes back into why these bespoke sheets while looking like more choices are actually the illusion of choice and why having more datasheets, especially bespoke ones, are not easier to balance by any means.

If you have 4 different kinds of librarians but one is just by far the best then you really just have 1 librarian thats worth taking. And the fact that we keep running into this over and over and over again means the balance is very out of whack. Trim the fat. Give everyone more actual options.

It doesn't mater what options you have. The people who always take the best stuff will take the best stuff whether they do what your suggesting or not. sure no named character, whats the best of the "more actual options" your proposing, they'll only take that instead.. you point is moot.

So if some people always choose the best thing regardless, why shouldn't we go for the option approach? It's not like we're trying to stop people minmaxing, as you've just said they always will.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Can special characters drive their own stories without rendering generic characters irrelevant by having better/cheaper rules and doing the things the generic characters aren't allowed to do?

If we enter in the competitive aspect to be honest special characters are inferior version of more customisable generic ones 90% of the time. This is like FW. People claim special characters are OP because two or three are powerfull ignoring than most of the rest are mediocre so taken just for narrative reasons.

Which goes back into why these bespoke sheets while looking like more choices are actually the illusion of choice and why having more datasheets, especially bespoke ones, are not easier to balance by any means.

If you have 4 different kinds of librarians but one is just by far the best then you really just have 1 librarian thats worth taking. And the fact that we keep running into this over and over and over again means the balance is very out of whack. Trim the fat. Give everyone more actual options.

It doesn't mater what options you have. The people who always take the best stuff will take the best stuff whether they do what your suggesting or not. sure no named character, whats the best of the "more actual options" your proposing, they'll only take that instead.. you point is moot.

So if some people always choose the best thing regardless, why shouldn't we go for the option approach? It's not like we're trying to stop people minmaxing, as you've just said they always will.

Please read my earlier posts. I am not answering this again. The circular arguments are just getting monotonous.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
I am not explaining the illusion of choice to you again.

I am not responding to absurd arguments either.

What is the difference between removing options within an army and genericizing rules between armies? You keep asserting that comparing the two is absurd but have yet to explain why.

You have different levels of choice so to speak when playing the game.

You can choose format/scale etc... How many points? What kinds of missions?

Then you choose armies. And your choice of army presents you with options thematic, aesthetic, and mechanical.

Choice of armies should be distinct in wargear and units and other game play elements. There isn't anything else in the game with a datasheet like the tyranid warrior for example. Synapse functions like nothing else in the game.

From there you have subfactions which basically give you your "chapter tactics" along with new options from warlord traits, a relic, stratagems and (sometimes) units.

The choice of army is not arbitrary. And if the choice of army was arbitrary then they should be consolidated. If traitor marines were just regular marines then you could have one codex with rules to present chaos chapter tactics. But you don't. Because the chaos army has access to units and rules that are nothing like what general space marines have which makes them a distinct choice and not the illusion of choice. Traitor marines do not and should not play like loyalist marines. If they did, again, I would argue for consolidation.

But when one unit in the army can choose between a bunch of guns.. like say the tyranid warrior. They get spinefists, devourers, deathspitters, or they can swap them for a pair of scytal. (these are swaps 1 for 1. There are other options that are not relevant to this discussion.

So you have a stock gun that shoots 3 times. a better gun that also shoots 3 times but with better ap and higher str and a better range. A gun that shoots (Attack) times (on warriors thats 3 again) with worse strength and no ap and 1/3rd the range of the deathspitter. And a melee weapon.

At this stage you have choices and you have calculations. The spine fist is a calculation. There is virtually no situation where the spine fists will be preferable to any other option available. Then the deathspitter and the devourer and scy tal is a choice between shooting or spending a couple extra points to shoot better vs committing entirely to melee. If you are going to commit to shooting then the deathspitters are a no brainier and if you are going to forgo shooting for melee then your choice is already made. So REALLY you have 2 meaningful choices. Shoot well with the deathspitter or take the scytal and fight. There is no target the devourer is better against then the deathspitter. You are not optimizing for a role by taking it. It's a calculation not a choice. Therefore just give Warriors the choice of Deathspitters or Scytal. It's the only meaningful choice on the list.

If you look at their melee options things get more interesting. Scytal let you reroll 1s and with 2 pair you get an extra attack. But boneswords have better AP and ALSO give an extra attack. Rending claws have another layer of interesting choice with 6s becoming ap4. Scytal are better against things with no or weak saves. Bone swords are better against decently armored targets and rending claws have a interesting effect that has some overlap with boneswords but out shines beyond a certain point. Those are all meaningful options. They also represent almost all of the melee options for the entire army (understanding that there are monstrous versions that upscale but function similarly).

Removing spinefists is a no brainer. It was never a real choice. Removing the devourer from the warrior datasheet is also a good idea. The choice was already made there if you were going to shoot at all. Or do what Apoc does and give them the single line of "Ranged Bio Weapon" and allow me to model whatever the hell I want.

When you start looking through the marine wargear list there is a ton of overlap. 2 or 3 options do the exact same job. In certain cases those exact same job options are available on the same units. When thats the case a singular profile that does the job and allows you to model more things while being just as good as the option you were taking anyway eliminates the illusion of choice and presents you with your real options. Coincidentally this makes it easier to balance too.


Merging armies isn't what we are talking about. Merging 3 different datasheets for terminators and giving you all your meaningful choices on one data sheets is. Just like someone suggested I could have gaunts and gants on a single datasheet with options for melee or shooting on it. Yeah. I could. It wouldn't hurt at all to do it and nothing of value would be lost.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you are playing competitively and/or enjoy crunching the numbers having meaningful choices is all you were paying attention to anyway and we have made it easier for you to do that. If you like fluffy narrative stuff then merging things like the power weapons into a single power weapon profile has given you more narrative options then you do now by allowing you to present that power weapon as whatever the hell you want it to be.

It's all wins.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Can special characters drive their own stories without rendering generic characters irrelevant by having better/cheaper rules and doing the things the generic characters aren't allowed to do?

If we enter in the competitive aspect to be honest special characters are inferior version of more customisable generic ones 90% of the time. This is like FW. People claim special characters are OP because two or three are powerfull ignoring than most of the rest are mediocre so taken just for narrative reasons.

Which goes back into why these bespoke sheets while looking like more choices are actually the illusion of choice and why having more datasheets, especially bespoke ones, are not easier to balance by any means.

If you have 4 different kinds of librarians but one is just by far the best then you really just have 1 librarian thats worth taking. And the fact that we keep running into this over and over and over again means the balance is very out of whack. Trim the fat. Give everyone more actual options.

trimming the fat doesn't mean more options, it just means less options.

I know I'm not the chap you were responding to, but I'd refer you once again to the Haemonculus' current selection of melee weapons.

In theory you have a choice of 6 different weapons.

In practise, there's no choice at all - because all of them fulfil the exact same role, but one of them is objectively better at it than any of the others (and doesn't even cost more points).

I believe this is the sort of thing Lance was referring to. Much as I like customisation, trap options are not a good thing.

Again, Lance can correct me if I'm wrong, but I imagine his preference in this example would be to make the weapons markedly different. For example, changing one or two of them to be effective against vehicles, rather than 5/6 of them being Poison (and the 6th just being outright trash against every conceivable target). Maybe have the Mindphase Gauntlet wound against Ld, or else have it do no damage in and of itself, but with each hit an enemy character/monster has to pass a Ld check or attack itself.

Even if people still end up preferring one option over the others, at least the alternative options won't be objectively worse against every possible target.

 vipoid wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Can special characters drive their own stories without rendering generic characters irrelevant by having better/cheaper rules and doing the things the generic characters aren't allowed to do?

If we enter in the competitive aspect to be honest special characters are inferior version of more customisable generic ones 90% of the time. This is like FW. People claim special characters are OP because two or three are powerfull ignoring than most of the rest are mediocre so taken just for narrative reasons.

Which goes back into why these bespoke sheets while looking like more choices are actually the illusion of choice and why having more datasheets, especially bespoke ones, are not easier to balance by any means.

If you have 4 different kinds of librarians but one is just by far the best then you really just have 1 librarian thats worth taking. And the fact that we keep running into this over and over and over again means the balance is very out of whack. Trim the fat. Give everyone more actual options.

trimming the fat doesn't mean more options, it just means less options.

I know I'm not the chap you were responding to, but I'd refer you once again to the Haemonculus' current selection of melee weapons.

In theory you have a choice of 6 different weapons.

In practise, there's no choice at all - because all of them fulfil the exact same role, but one of them is objectively better at it than any of the others (and doesn't even cost more points).

I believe this is the sort of thing Lance was referring to. Much as I like customisation, trap options are not a good thing.

Again, Lance can correct me if I'm wrong, but I imagine his preference in this example would be to make the weapons markedly different. For example, changing one or two of them to be effective against vehicles, rather than 5/6 of them being Poison (and the 6th just being outright trash against every conceivable target). Maybe have the Mindphase Gauntlet wound against Ld, or else have it do no damage in and of itself, but with each hit an enemy character/monster has to pass a Ld check or attack itself.

Even if people still end up preferring one option over the others, at least the alternative options won't be objectively worse against every possible target.

You got it.

You need to give meaningful choices. There are only so many different kinds of targets in the design space. Having 2 weapons that do the same job except one does it better isn't actually a choice. Drop or consolidate the 2 into a shared proifle so you at least gain modeling options. If the weapons are not providing meaningful choice they shouldn't exist. They are the very definition of bloat.

 Lance845 wrote:
The choice of army is not arbitrary. And if the choice of army was arbitrary then they should be consolidated. If traitor marines were just regular marines then you could have one codex with rules to present chaos chapter tactics. But you don't. Because the chaos army has access to units and rules that are nothing like what general space marines have which makes them a distinct choice and not the illusion of choice. Traitor marines do not and should not play like loyalist marines. If they did, again, I would argue for consolidation.

What is your threshold for consolidation? Is it some specific percentage of shared rules hard and objective or is it an 'I'll know it when I see it' style judgement call?

But when one unit in the army can choose between a bunch of guns.. like say the tyranid warrior. They get spinefists, devourers, deathspitters, or they can swap them for a pair of scytal. (these are swaps 1 for 1. There are other options that are not relevant to this discussion.

So you have a stock gun that shoots 3 times. a better gun that also shoots 3 times but with better ap and higher str. A gun that shoots (Attack) times with worse strength and no ap. And a melee weapon.

I'm going to cut your explanation for the sake of brevity, I assure you that I did read it.

My argument is that these weapons should be balanced not removed. For example, we could give the Devourer back it's old ability to reroll wounds which then does make it an actual choice between it and a Deathspitter based on expected targets. Spinefists could be strength user rather than S3 and that would make them an interesting choice actual use cases. If you always cut options the second they underperform you're going to end up with a boring game while also limiting your options to change the balance at a later date. If this were GWs design philosophy we'd be much closer to generic armies, which we can all agree are bad, than to anything interesting and unique.

Merging armies isn't what we are talking about. Merging 3 different datasheets for terminators and giving you all your meaningful choices on one data sheets is. Just like someone suggested I could have gaunts and gants on a single datasheet with options for melee or shooting on it. Yeah. I could. It wouldn't hurt at all to do it and nothing of value would be lost.

So merge these units, keep all the same restrictions on load-outs, and gain what exactly? You don't change anything in terms of gameplay by doing this unless you remove options or change restrictions as part of the merger. You do however make the rules denser and more difficult for some players to read by filling a single sheet with lists of exceptions and if statements.

If you are playing competitively and/or enjoy crunching the numbers having meaningful choices is all you were paying attention to anyway and we have made it easier for you to do that.

We made every answer on this multiple-choice test C, the test is now impossible to fail and therefore not worth studying for. Do you see why some players might take an issue with this approach?

If you like fluffy narrative stuff then merging things like the power weapons into a single power weapon profile has given you more narrative options then you do now by allowing you to present that power weapon as whatever the hell you want it to be.

So there are no cases where the current differentiation of power weapons change anything? If this is the case there's already no need for balance, but otherwise, every weapon has, at least in theory, a niche to fill.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
The choice of army is not arbitrary. And if the choice of army was arbitrary then they should be consolidated. If traitor marines were just regular marines then you could have one codex with rules to present chaos chapter tactics. But you don't. Because the chaos army has access to units and rules that are nothing like what general space marines have which makes them a distinct choice and not the illusion of choice. Traitor marines do not and should not play like loyalist marines. If they did, again, I would argue for consolidation.

What is your threshold for consolidation? Is it some specific percentage of shared rules hard and objective or is it an 'I'll know it when I see it' style judgement call?

I told you before that game design is math, psychology, and art. So the answer to your question is all 3. There is a psycological element to it, there is a math element to it and there is an art element to it. There is no math that wholly explains that synapse is different from mob rules. But we can all agree that it is and that tyranids (at least in part) because of synapse function differently from other armies right? It's objective right? Tyranids as an army do not play like other armies.

But when one unit in the army can choose between a bunch of guns.. like say the tyranid warrior. They get spinefists, devourers, deathspitters, or they can swap them for a pair of scytal. (these are swaps 1 for 1. There are other options that are not relevant to this discussion.

So you have a stock gun that shoots 3 times. a better gun that also shoots 3 times but with better ap and higher str. A gun that shoots (Attack) times with worse strength and no ap. And a melee weapon.

I'm going to cut your explanation for the sake of brevity, I assure you that I did read it.

My argument is that these weapons should be balanced not removed. For example, we could give the Devourer back it's old ability to reroll wounds which then does make it an actual choice between it and a Deathspitter based on expected targets. Spinefists could be strength user rather than S3 and that would make them an interesting choice actual use cases. If you always cut options the second they underperform you're going to end up with a boring game while also limiting your options to change the balance at a later date. If this were GWs design philosophy we'd be much closer to generic armies, which we can all agree are bad, than to anything interesting and unique.

Hey man, but what about PvNP and all that, right? You are talking about a massive increase in the developers time spent to balance a game they already cannot keep up with.

The ability to reroll wounds is already on termagants in units of 20+. See how you are stepping on the limited design space? And don't change it to rerolling to hit. Because thats what Tervigons give them. But even if you did do that, 6" extra range +1 str and -1 ap would STILL make the devourer a non-choice. Rerolling wounds doesn't change the intended target. They are BOTH made to take out lower save infantry. They both have the same rate of fire. The deathspitter is just better at it. So you would need to up the devourers rate of fire. Lets say we give it 5 shots? (meaning termagants now shoot 150 times rerolling 1s to hit and wound with tervigon support) But we also need to make the deathspitter better at heavier save targets otherwise the deathspitter becomes the illusion of choice. SO we make it AP-2. But now why the hell would I ever pay points to take the anti infantry biocanon on the warriors? See how they are stepping on each others toes? A random number of shots with blast but the same str with less AP. MSU and marine prevalence means blast is nigh useless. The higher AP or the 5 shot devourers would be far more reliable.

As for your spinefist suggestion. SO they become 12" pistol A(3) str 4 ap- d1 versus the devourers 18"assault 3 str4 ap- D1 reroll 1s to wound. And while spinefists are free, they also mean you loose out on a second pair of scything talons which means you are loosing out on an extra str 4 attack in melee that reroll to hit. Would YOU trade a crap pistol for rerolling to hit attacks in melee? I wouldn't. It not only still looses to the devourer it also looses out to the scytal.

PvNP. What do you think? Is time spent developing and balancing a multitude of datasheets and wargear that fulfill the same role on the same units within the same army or should they consolidate and focus on balancing the meaningful options that actually get used so players have good meaningful choice?

Nobody is suggesting to cut things because they underperform. They are saying cut and consolidate so that the distinct roles are filled. It's about removing overlap more than anything so that the choices actually matter.

Merging armies isn't what we are talking about. Merging 3 different datasheets for terminators and giving you all your meaningful choices on one data sheets is. Just like someone suggested I could have gaunts and gants on a single datasheet with options for melee or shooting on it. Yeah. I could. It wouldn't hurt at all to do it and nothing of value would be lost.

So merge these units, keep all the same restrictions on load-outs, and gain what exactly? You don't change anything in terms of gameplay by doing this unless you remove options or change restrictions as part of the merger. You do however make the rules denser and more difficult for some players to read by filling a single sheet with lists of exceptions and if statements.

It only gets more difficult to read if the formatting is difficult to read. That is a interface issue and unrelated to the mechanics being discussed. You keep the meaningful options. By now having them on a single sheet it's easier to see what is and is not meaningful and consolidate where needed to create actual choice. The much fought over TWC is an example where the attacks from the wolf are not doing anything meaningful compared to the bike. they both impact targets basically the same way. You COULD argue the on the charge element and I am even inclined to agree with you. Which can be solved with some 2-3 point option on the "cavalry" datasheet called "War Steed" or some gak to make the attacks every round instead of just on the charge. Then if salamanders want to ride big lizards they can. And if my homebrew wants to ride dinosaurs they can. Options are gained and nothing of value is lost.

If you are playing competitively and/or enjoy crunching the numbers having meaningful choices is all you were paying attention to anyway and we have made it easier for you to do that.

We made every answer on this multiple-choice test C, the test is now impossible to fail and therefore not worth studying for. Do you see why some players might take an issue with this approach?

Another absurdum/strawman. Nobody is saying that. You also misrepresent the purpose of a test. This statement is meaningless. Further, if some players issue is "BUT I WANT MORE THINGS EVEN IF THEY DO NOTHING AND BLOAT THE GAME" then I don't care about their issues. I want a better game.

If you like fluffy narrative stuff then merging things like the power weapons into a single power weapon profile has given you more narrative options then you do now by allowing you to present that power weapon as whatever the hell you want it to be.

So there are no cases where the current differentiation of power weapons change anything? If this is the case there's already no need for balance, but otherwise, every weapon has, at least in theory, a niche to fill.

Incorrect. As pointed out by me and others repeatedly in this thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I want to reiterate this. If somehow you gave deathspitters, devourers, and spinefists the correct point costs to perfectly balance their impact versus their shared intended targets then all you have done is given players a no choice. You either want the greatest impact per model which is the deathspitter or you want the lowest cost per model which is the spine fists (which also means you have basically no impact so why the platform is worth anything at this point is anyones guess). It's 3 options to equip a tyranid warrior to do the exact same job.

Imperial Guard are a great example of the Generic Datasheet gone wrong.

How?

Regiments. Take a look at your average Catachan versus your average Cadian. Usually the Cadian is wearing flak armor everywhere crucial - on his head, chest, shoulders, and sometimes his knees. The Catachan has a shirt (sometimes) and a bandana... Yet somehow his rock hard abs give him a 5+ just like the armored Cadian? Ork Boyz are wearing even more armor than Catachans and their armor is worse!

The Catachans could have received their own datasheet: 7+ save and when in cover count as having a 4+ save. Just as an example.

 Slayer6 wrote:
Imperial Guard are a great example of the Generic Datasheet gone wrong.

How?

Regiments. Take a look at your average Catachan versus your average Cadian. Usually the Cadian is wearing flak armor everywhere crucial - on his head, chest, shoulders, and sometimes his knees. The Catachan has a shirt (sometimes) and a bandana... Yet somehow his rock hard abs give him a 5+ just like the armored Cadian? Ork Boyz are wearing even more armor than Catachans and their armor is worse!

The Catachans could have received their own datasheet: 7+ save and when in cover count as having a 4+ save. Just as an example.

I disagree with you but thats fine. This isn't kill team or necromunda where something like that which is just aesthetic should matter.