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.

Other potential words include: flavorful, characterful, useful, interesting...

 Dysartes wrote:
Other potential words include: flavorful, characterful, useful, interesting...

Is S6 versus S5 flavorful?
Is AP-2 versus AP-3 characterful?

Because they all perform, mechanically, very similarly against the majority of targets.

 Dysartes wrote:
Other potential words include: flavorful, characterful, useful, interesting...

What's interesting about the Power Pickaxe profile compared to any other weapon?

I'll give you a hint. Well not really a hint. It isn't interesting. At all.

Its only useful or interesting if they actually do a different job. They dont so they aren't

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Other potential words include: flavorful, characterful, useful, interesting...

Is S6 versus S5 flavorful?
Is AP-2 versus AP-3 characterful?

Because they all perform, mechanically, very similarly against the majority of targets.

That is like saying that being 2ed or 3ed in an event is the same as being first. Of course being the best and better is more flavorful, characterful, useful, interesting.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:
Its only useful or interesting if they actually do a different job. They dont so they aren't

Go before a commission for sports and tell them that being 7th placed is the same being 1st. I mean you placed, in the same thing, did the same stuff as others. Nothing different between one and the other.

A sports commision has nothing to do with game design. Good try though.

 catbarf wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
But non marine armies probably want to keep differentiation in power weapons because we don't get all the other variety.

I know I certainly do.

Is there something that makes having a bunch of flavors of near-identical power weapon more appealing than having a single generic power weapon profile, but additional weapon options that do distinctly different things?

Against power armour, save mod is the most important stat.
Against high toughness, str bonus is the most important stat.

Swords are better vs MEQ than mauls.
Mauls are better vs monstrous nids than swords.

It's also worth mentioning that not all factions get all options; Inquisition has no axes, Sisters have no fists, etc. Make it generic and everyone has everything- just takes away flavour from individual armies. I think the only factions that have access to everything are marines. I know, shocking, right?

Power weapons being different had more meaning when armor was all or nothing, AV was a thing, USRs was a thing, and the to wound table was more punishing (aka 7th). There was a lot of trade offs between axe vs maul vs sword. Same for the whole assortment of other weapons like claws, fist, TH, chainfist, etc where they all operated in a different capacity to various degrees. Now it's all just kinda boils down to what outputs the most damage output, it doesn't really matter much to have a half dozen different power weapon options.

You still had some half baked ideas like power lances which had a lot of potential but was poorly executed in terms of balance (hit real hard on the charge but lose a lot of killing power when stuck in protracted combat. I used them extensively to meh effect). GW's blanket wargear pricing tended to plague these options as power swords where not remotely equivalent to mauls or axes and 25 points for a PF/PK on a guardsman's sergeant is not even remotely equivalent to a PK on an Ork Warboss.

Except there wasn't a lot of trade offs. Axes did everything and Mauls had the benefit of the wounding chart at that time + Concussion. Swords were awful.

Yes it's a needless distinction. No one should have to worry about the power wolf bladed axe of runeterra or something.

Not to mention remembering that for every other subfaction. Just give them a blanket rule so that new players that model for fun aren't gimped because they chose the slightly weaker but cooler looking Power Jackhammer.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
This exact same problem applies to the whole page of bolter variations Space Mahreooins now have. Cut. Down. The. Bloat.

There are at least 20 bolt weapons to get rid of before you compress power weapons.

 Insectum7 wrote:
There are at least 20 bolt weapons to get rid of before you compress power weapons.

Agreed. At this point I'm almost tempted to say that the small weapon differences should be an ability on the unit, ie kraken rounds or cawl autoloaders etc.

 Insectum7 wrote:
There are at least 20 bolt weapons to get rid of before you compress power weapons.

Oh I'm all for consolidation of MANY of those profiles.

 Lance845 wrote:
If all 5 were available on one unit. Yes.

The SM captain can take ALL of those weapon options. And the power weapons when available on other units are still fighting for design space with each other. They don't get different ranges. It's just 3 weapons doing the same job.

That sounds a lot like Devastators to me:

They start with the basic boltgun for free and can upgrade to be better against different target profiles with some options that are traps and others that easily fill a useful role. Should we consolidate down their weapon options and, for example, squat the missile launcher because it doesn't fill out any given role properly and is a trap option?

Yeah lets make the game WAY more complicated then it already is by giving melee weapons a bunch of different modes and ranges even though everyone will just pile in anyway. And we STILL won't gain any design space.

Yeah, let's keep melee as a boring phase where we bang blocks of stats into one another and the main difference between units is getting them into melee at all rather than ability once they get there.

-----

EDIT: Also, as a challenge for you, show me examples of weapons that aren't from Codex: Space Marines (and which exist outside of legends) that also need consolidation. Bonus points are available for your thoughts on how consolidation may impact other armies that use the same weapons as those used in C:SM.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
If all 5 were available on one unit. Yes.

The SM captain can take ALL of those weapon options. And the power weapons when available on other units are still fighting for design space with each other. They don't get different ranges. It's just 3 weapons doing the same job.

That sounds a lot like Devastators to me:

They start with the basic boltgun for free and can upgrade to be better against different target profiles with some options that are traps and others that easily fill a useful role. Should we consolidate down their weapon options and, for example, squat the missile launcher because it doesn't fill out any given role properly and is a trap option?

Yeah lets make the game WAY more complicated then it already is by giving melee weapons a bunch of different modes and ranges even though everyone will just pile in anyway. And we STILL won't gain any design space.

Yeah, let's keep melee as a boring phase where we bang blocks of stats into one another and the main difference between units is getting them into melee at all rather than ability once they get there.

-----

EDIT: Also, as a challenge for you, show me examples of weapons that aren't from Codex: Space Marines (and which exist outside of legends) that also need consolidation. Bonus points are available for your thoughts on how consolidation may impact other armies that use the same weapons as those used in C:SM.

I mean, keeping arbitrary power weapon statlines doesn't make melee more interesting lmao. So I'm not exactly sure what you're point is for

 Eonfuzz wrote:
I mean, keeping arbitrary power weapon statlines doesn't make melee more interesting lmao. So I'm not exactly sure what you're point is for

My post from page 2 of this thread:

"So let's make melee weapons actually interesting then.

They can have ranges 1/2" for basic weapons, 1" for pole weapons, and 2" for monstrous creatures/dreadnaughts; some weapons might be better only when the unit is charging (or only when the unit is being charged); others might apply debuffs such as halving enemy movement until the end of your next turn; yet others might have different profiles for use against different targets like more attacks/less strength on one mode and fewer attacks/more strength in a second mode; some weapons may even cost an attack instead of adding one. These are just a few ideas."

So yeah, perhaps read the thread before making empty comments.

I'd agree with C5th. Would prefer they were made more interesting than consolidated it the issue is they are too similar.

That said I think the idea of consolidating them is a bit of a strange hill to die on, if they are all pretty much the same anyway why any issue with them having slightly different profiles if some find that more engaging. I understand that for some it would be an issue with the game as a whole but this particular instance seems like it should be a particularly low priority even then!

Dai wrote:
I'd agree with C5th. Would prefer they were made more interesting than consolidated it the issue is they are too similar.

That said I think the idea of consolidating them is a bit of a strange hill to die on, if they are all pretty much the same anyway why any issue with them having slightly different profiles if some find that more engaging. I understand that for some it would be an issue with the game as a whole but this particular instance seems like it should be a particularly low priority even then!

The core rules for 40k are so shallow that once we strip away the 'challenge' of picking the right tools for the job there really won't be anything left. People dislike losing in the list building phase but it's the most choice we get, on the tabletop the game is only blocking movement with early game charges, shooting at the objectively correct targets and using starts as appropriate. It has the depth of a wading pool and is massively propped up by list building and meta chasing.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Eonfuzz wrote:
I mean, keeping arbitrary power weapon statlines doesn't make melee more interesting lmao. So I'm not exactly sure what you're point is for

My post from page 2 of this thread:

"So let's make melee weapons actually interesting then.

They can have ranges 1/2" for basic weapons, 1" for pole weapons, and 2" for monstrous creatures/dreadnaughts; some weapons might be better only when the unit is charging (or only when the unit is being charged); others might apply debuffs such as halving enemy movement until the end of your next turn; yet others might have different profiles for use against different targets like more attacks/less strength on one mode and fewer attacks/more strength in a second mode; some weapons may even cost an attack instead of adding one. These are just a few ideas."

So yeah, perhaps read the thread before making empty comments.

Weapon attack ranges are bad for the same reason Blast makers were.
Already there are people that micromeasure ignoring intent to ensure units cannot attack in melee.

This would probably be just as bad, if not worse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Dai wrote:
I'd agree with C5th. Would prefer they were made more interesting than consolidated it the issue is they are too similar.

That said I think the idea of consolidating them is a bit of a strange hill to die on, if they are all pretty much the same anyway why any issue with them having slightly different profiles if some find that more engaging. I understand that for some it would be an issue with the game as a whole but this particular instance seems like it should be a particularly low priority even then!

The core rules for 40k are so shallow that once we strip away the 'challenge' of picking the right tools for the job there really won't be anything left. People dislike losing in the list building phase but it's the most choice we get, on the tabletop the game is only blocking movement with early game charges, shooting at the objectively correct targets and using starts as appropriate. It has the depth of a wading pool and is massively propped up by list building and meta chasing.

Absolutely agree. Basic 40k rules are extremely shallow in the name of "accessibility", and more often go for the breadth of rules approach rather than depth.
I honestly kind've miss Blast templates even considering how some players handled them. I also miss the old melee iniative values as they added depth to the game.

Also, the current implementation of STR vs TOUGNNESS is terrible and needs to be reviewed. For almost all intents and purposes S1 and S2 weapons don't exist, and there's too many breakpoints where weapon strength does not matter.

 Eonfuzz wrote:
Weapon attack ranges are bad for the same reason Blast makers were.
Already there are people that micromeasure ignoring intent to ensure units cannot attack in melee.

This would probably be just as bad, if not worse.

Oh so you're also one of the 'Positioning in a miniatures game is bad actually' crowd...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Absolutely agree. Basic 40k rules are extremely shallow in the name of "accessibility", and more often go for the breadth of rules approach rather than depth.
I honestly kind've miss Blast templates even considering how some players handled them. I also miss the old melee iniative values as they added depth to the game.

Also, the current implementation of STR vs TOUGNNESS is terrible and needs to be reviewed. For almost all intents and purposes S1 and S2 weapons don't exist, and there's too many breakpoints where weapon strength does not matter.

Given this I was probably too harsh above. Still, we shouldn't build a game expecting that everybody plays it like tryharding manchildren.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
If all 5 were available on one unit. Yes.

The SM captain can take ALL of those weapon options. And the power weapons when available on other units are still fighting for design space with each other. They don't get different ranges. It's just 3 weapons doing the same job.

That sounds a lot like Devastators to me:

They start with the basic boltgun for free and can upgrade to be better against different target profiles with some options that are traps and others that easily fill a useful role. Should we consolidate down their weapon options and, for example, squat the missile launcher because it doesn't fill out any given role properly and is a trap option?

Yes.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Eonfuzz wrote:
Weapon attack ranges are bad for the same reason Blast makers were.
Already there are people that micromeasure ignoring intent to ensure units cannot attack in melee.

This would probably be just as bad, if not worse.

Oh so you're also one of the 'Positioning in a miniatures game is bad actually' crowd...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Absolutely agree. Basic 40k rules are extremely shallow in the name of "accessibility", and more often go for the breadth of rules approach rather than depth.
I honestly kind've miss Blast templates even considering how some players handled them. I also miss the old melee iniative values as they added depth to the game.

Also, the current implementation of STR vs TOUGNNESS is terrible and needs to be reviewed. For almost all intents and purposes S1 and S2 weapons don't exist, and there's too many breakpoints where weapon strength does not matter.

Given this I was probably too harsh above. Still, we shouldn't build a game expecting that everybody plays it like tryharding manchildren.

Ideally it's built to cater to all audiences. But the more I see companies try to do this, the less I believe it's possible.
In saying that though, you have games like MTG and some RTS that manage to do both.

But anyway, essentially the current depth of the game is derived from unit unique abilities - creating a ridiculous amount of breadth and false agency.
Move stuff to USR's, expand upon the basic systems so that not everything isn't a variant of ridiculous like the naming of Heavy Intercessor's Heavy AutoSTalkerBotRifle.

LOS does't really even matter, movement doesn't even really matter and positioning doesn't really even matter.
Game balance right now is decided by objectives that are designed so each player can only reach a certain amount each turn, essentially forcing balance in a terribly designed game.

8e took steps in the right direction but... the core design is meh

 Lance845 wrote:
Yes.

There's a key part of that post you didn't reply to. Is there a reason for that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eonfuzz wrote:
Ideally it's built to cater to all audiences. But the more I see companies try to do this, the less I believe it's possible.
In saying that though, you have games like MTG and some RTS that manage to do both.

The thing with difficult games that capture a large market is that they either need to be first (MtG, 40k), be so well balanced that they spawn their own pro-scene (Starcraft), or be so well marketed that they're inescapable (League of Legends). Once they reach that critical mass they can more or less do whatever they like and not shed too many players (see MtG and their banlist over the past few years for proof).

But anyway, essentially the current depth of the game is derived from unit unique abilities - creating a ridiculous amount of breadth and false agency.
Move stuff to USR's, expand upon the basic systems so that not everything isn't a variant of ridiculous like the naming of Heavy Intercessor's Heavy AutoSTalkerBotRifle.

I want options in the game but even I don't like the Heavy Light Heavy Bolt Rifle Carbine, nor do I think the game is better for having each unit require 3+ bespoke rules to function. That said, what do you have left if you remove them from current 40k?

LOS does't really even matter, movement doesn't even really matter and positioning doesn't really even matter.
Game balance right now is decided by objectives that are designed so each player can only reach a certain amount each turn, essentially forcing balance in a terribly designed game.

8e took steps in the right direction but... the core design is meh

Agreed.

My reasons are stated several times over the last 2 pages. Design space is limited. Actual choices are good. The illusion of choice is bad. Have good meaningful options. Consolidate and/or remove redundant or pointless options.

 Lance845 wrote:
My reasons are stated several times over the last 2 pages. Design space is limited. Actual choices are good. The illusion of choice is bad. Have good meaningful options. Consolidate and/or remove redundant or pointless options.

So what does 40k look like if we cut back on every redundant option be they a weapon, unit, or special rule? Is it not just a shallow mess piled on a framework that, frankly, isn't interesting enough to be worth a damn?

40k's system is overcooked pasta and ketchup and you're proposing we throw out all the seasoning that makes it almost edible.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
My reasons are stated several times over the last 2 pages. Design space is limited. Actual choices are good. The illusion of choice is bad. Have good meaningful options. Consolidate and/or remove redundant or pointless options.

So what does 40k look like if we cut back on every redundant option be they a weapon, unit, or special rule? Is it not just a shallow mess piled on a framework that, frankly, isn't interesting enough to be worth a damn?

40k's system is overcooked pasta and ketchup and you're proposing we throw out all the seasoning that makes it almost edible.

I think you have to remove the seasoning before you learn to cook. Less is more.

In this case you remove as many snowflake abilities as possible and roll them into USR's, remove as many weapon variants as possible and roll them into unit abilities.
Cawl Autoloader - All models in this unit are outfitted with a Cawl Pattern Autoloader. Treat Bolters wielded by units in the squad as if they had a range of 30", and an AP of -1.

It also lets buffs / nerfs target underperforming units better.
Oh also, please hire a proof reader gw.

 Eonfuzz wrote:
I think you have to remove the seasoning before you learn to cook. Less is more.

That assumes that the chef has any interest in cooking and isn't just making something good enough and then snacking on cheetos. GW has fingers so crusted in cheese dust that it's a wonder you can't see fingerprints and smudges on everything.

In this case you remove as many snowflake abilities as possible and roll them into USR's, remove as many weapon variants as possible and roll them into unit abilities.
Cawl Autoloader - All models in this unit are outfitted with a Cawl Pattern Autoloader. Treat Bolters wielded by units in the squad as if they had a range of 30", and an AP of -1.

That literally changes nothing about the weapon. You've only changed the formatting and not the end result.

Wait, it actually may make things worse as any buff to bolters now buffs multiple units.

My reasons are stated several times over the last 2 pages. Design space is limited. Actual choices are good. The illusion of choice is bad. Have good meaningful options. Consolidate and/or remove redundant or pointless options.

But there is no illusion of choices. If you have multiple space marine factions, and some have bonuses to the number of A, some have bonuses to the too wound rolls, and some have neither, then all 3 are going to have different "best in slot weapon", but because GW wants people buy multiple books there options for all 3 or 4 or 5 have to be in those books, because if they went and limited it to lets say a weapon that is cheap and choppy and big weapon, then only the factions that don't care and that have bonus to wound would be okey with it, and the faction that proc stuff out of extra attacks would be constantly asking for either rules changes or faction specific weapons, to no have a stricktly inferior rule set then the armies that buff the wounding.

All such a change achives is limiting to options and armies who GW gives extra rules. It doesn't even come with the promise that the extra design time GW would get, would actualy be spend on designing things. What would most probably happen is that GW would give a cut up version of rules to people, and tell them to deal with it for years. And no one who already has rules they like wants that. I mean what is next, aknowlading that non marine factions are impossible to balance in w40k, and puting focus on marine rules only? that would save even more design time to polish all the meq factions rules.

 Eonfuzz wrote:


I think you have to remove the seasoning before you learn to cook. Less is more.

I would like to see you marinate a pig without salt or bayleaf. Or cook potatoes without salt.

Karol wrote:

 Eonfuzz wrote:


I think you have to remove the seasoning before you learn to cook. Less is more.

I would like to see you marinate a pig without salt or bayleaf. Or cook potatoes without salt.

Imagine starting to cook pork by throwing it into a bowl of satay to marinate, then when you're done put it in some teriyaki and slap it on the grill. While it's grilling put some ketchup on, some more salt and sure why not - a beetroot too.

Yes, cooking with seasoning is required. But the less the better


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Eonfuzz wrote:
I think you have to remove the seasoning before you learn to cook. Less is more.

That assumes that the chef has any interest in cooking and isn't just making something good enough and then snacking on cheetos. GW has fingers so crusted in cheese dust that it's a wonder you can't see fingerprints and smudges on everything.

In this case you remove as many snowflake abilities as possible and roll them into USR's, remove as many weapon variants as possible and roll them into unit abilities.
Cawl Autoloader - All models in this unit are outfitted with a Cawl Pattern Autoloader. Treat Bolters wielded by units in the squad as if they had a range of 30", and an AP of -1.

That literally changes nothing about the weapon. You've only changed the formatting and not the end result.

Wait, it actually may make things worse as any buff to bolters now buffs multiple units.

You wouldn't make any baseline changes to bolter if possible, instead you'd alter the special ability to buff or nerf.
Essentially it uses a memory trick. Remembering the "Bolter Statline" + "This unit gives 1 ap" is easier to remember than 30 different statlines.

You wouldn't make any baseline changes to bolter if possible, instead you'd alter the special ability to buff or nerf.
Essentially it uses a memory trick. Remembering the "Bolter Statline" + "This unit gives 1 ap" is easier to remember than 30 different statlines.

Or just ask for a copy of your opponent's list before the game and pull up the rules for stuff you don't know on your phone... We have tech, feel free to use it.