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.
And the idea is that it gives you a dozen different knobs you can turn and tune. Changing on weapon without it cascading through the army. But since that is a knob that is generally rusted stuck and weapon profiles don't get balance changes its pointless bloat.
Totally. Like I get the theory, but in the end it's just so barftastic. All the minutiae just hurts the gaming experience.
Hecaton wrote: Necron Warriors should honestly be T4 2w 3+ save.
A CSM player recently beat Tau and Custodes going 5-1 using 2x7 Talons, 5 Chosen, 5 Havocs, 30 Cultists, etc. W2 isn't the be all end all of durability metrics and Crons could be quite brutal on resurrection with that profile.
The new 'Nid book is a case study in what people mean when they say they're sick of the bloat and also how "bespoke" rules haven't helped anything.
What do I mean by this? Well let's look at the humble Scything Talon, a staple of the Tyranids since their re-imagining in 3rd Edition 40k where Boneswords were adapted from held weapons to elongated claws (Boneswords would eventually return as a separate thing, confusing everything, but that's a different topic).
In this book, what is a Scything Talon?
Well the Hive Tyrant and the Winged Hive Tyrant have Monstrous Scything Talons, but the Winged Hive Tyrant also has 'Tyrant Claws', which are very similar but not quite the same.
The Tyranid Prime has Scything Talons.
The Tervigon has Massive Scything Talons.
The Trygon Prime has Trygon Scything Talons, which are Scything Talons yet don't have the same rules.
Old One Eye is back to Monstrous Scything Talons.
Tyranid Warriors, like the Prime, get regular Scything Talons.
Hormagaunts have... Hormagaunt Talons. Sure! Why not? Let's add another weapon type. But we're not done.
Tyrant Guard have Scything Talons.
Lictors/Deathleapers have 'Lictor Claws and Talons' rather than actual distinct weapons now. So Talons, but more differenter Talons. Maleceptor has those Massive Scything Talons.
The Scything Talons Genestealers used to get have been folded into their regular weapons like Lictors.
Raveners have 2 Scything Talons and something called Ravener Claws (not to be confused with Rending Claws, which they can also get!), which are the smaller Talons that now aren't actually Talons. Totally not confusing.
We don't have the page for Trygons, but given the Prime, we can easily presume he'll have Trygon Scything Talons.
The Mawloc has Mawloc Scything Talons, which are different to all the other Scything Talons.
The Exocrine, a model that very clearly has smaller Scything Talons, has 'Powerful Limbs'. What's visual consistency anyway?
Carnifex has Carnifex Scything Talons.
Screamer Killers have Screamer Killer Scything Talons.
Thornbacks have... Thornback Scything Talons? No! Wrong! They also have Carnifex Scything Talons, because that makes total sense and is completely consistent, right?
I'm convinced that different people wrote different entries in this book and at no point talked to one another.
There's two major groups of talons. Those that offer a benefit and those that do not. Within those groups there's big and little versions, basically.
The crime here is that units like Screamer Killers could have received Carnifex Talons and put the profile to 6A, but judging by how horny people get looking at 10 attacks on the profile it seems like GW knew their audience. All the weapons that buck the trends are on super high attack models or those where they just didn't want to grant extra attacks and opted to instead put them on the profile. Those units are all units that have no option to trade their talons off, either.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/03/16 02:06:38
Daedalus81 wrote: There's two major groups of talons. Those that offer a benefit and those that do not. Within those groups there's big and little versions, basically.
Ok, stop. Don't try to minimise this nonsense, or act like it's not right there in front of you. There are no "major groups" or whatever else you've invented in your attempt to make it out like this isn't a bloated mess.
There are seven different types of Scything Talons in the book:
And then you work out how many total attacks you want your big monster to have, and equip them correctly. So if they wanted the Screamer Killer to have 10 attacks, then they should have given it 4 Monstrous Scything Talons and A6. Then it gets +1A for each of the four, bringing it to 10. It didn't need to be a separate profile.
Having the option (or not) to trade off the talons is irrelevant. We didn't need 7 Scything Talon profiles that all do slightly different things. This isn't rocket science.
*And then three types of Rending Claws (Rending, Monstrous and Massive) and Crushing Claws (ditto for all three). Standardisation and codification would have made this SO much easier and not lead to inane nonsense like two types of Scything Talons for 3 types of Carnifex/Trygon, an units with Scything Talons and not-Scything Talons-that-are-still-obviously-talons (Raveners).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/03/16 02:41:58
Hecaton wrote: Necron Warriors should honestly be T4 2w 3+ save.
A CSM player recently beat Tau and Custodes going 5-1 using 2x7 Talons, 5 Chosen, 5 Havocs, 30 Cultists, etc. W2 isn't the be all end all of durability metrics and Crons could be quite brutal on resurrection with that profile.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Yeah D's right. The way Res Protocols punish models with multiple wounds, I'd be careful about wanting more units to have W2 or higher.
It's less about game balance and more about stats representing what (IMO) the fluff is (or should be). Obviously if the statline of the core units changed to that degree the codex would have to be rebalanced around it.
Daedalus81 wrote: There's two major groups of talons. Those that offer a benefit and those that do not. Within those groups there's big and little versions, basically.
Ok, stop. Don't try to minimise this nonsense, or act like it's not right there in front of you. There are no "major groups" or whatever else you've invented in your attempt to make it out like this isn't a bloated mess.
There are seven different types of Scything Talons in the book:
And then you work out how many total attacks you want your big monster to have, and equip them correctly. So if they wanted the Screamer Killer to have 10 attacks, then they should have given it 4 Monstrous Scything Talons and A6. Then it gets +1A for each of the four, bringing it to 10. It didn't need to be a separate profile.
Having the option (or not) to trade off the talons is irrelevant. We didn't need 7 Scything Talon profiles that all do slightly different things. This isn't rocket science.
*And then three types of Rending Claws (Rending, Monstrous and Massive) and Crushing Claws (ditto for all three). Standardisation and codification would have made this SO much easier and not lead to inane nonsense like two types of Scything Talons for 3 types of Carnifex/Trygon, an units with Scything Talons and not-Scything Talons-that-are-still-obviously-talons (Raveners).
And this is laborious how? The info is all on the sheet. They absolutely could have done it in a more concise manner and it just doesn't matter.
Hecaton wrote: Necron Warriors should honestly be T4 2w 3+ save.
A CSM player recently beat Tau and Custodes going 5-1 using 2x7 Talons, 5 Chosen, 5 Havocs, 30 Cultists, etc. W2 isn't the be all end all of durability metrics and Crons could be quite brutal on resurrection with that profile.
Yeah and that's happened how many times so far?
I guess we'll find out when he plays again ( hasn't yet ), but you don't generally just casually beat Tau and Custodes. Broader point being he won 5 games with a lot of W1 models.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/03/16 04:36:15
For the reasons already stated: It's unnecessary. Its adds nothing to the game. There was no reason to make 7 versions and 6 pseudo-versions of the same weapon. Why is this so hard to fathom?
Daedalus81 wrote: They absolutely could have done it in a more concise manner and it just doesn't matter.
"Yeah, well, you're probably right but... umm... it doesn't matter! So there!" Your arms got real strong moving all them goal posts.
Daedalus81 wrote: There's two major groups of talons. Those that offer a benefit and those that do not. Within those groups there's big and little versions, basically.
Ok, stop. Don't try to minimise this nonsense, or act like it's not right there in front of you. There are no "major groups" or whatever else you've invented in your attempt to make it out like this isn't a bloated mess.
There are seven different types of Scything Talons in the book:
And then you work out how many total attacks you want your big monster to have, and equip them correctly. So if they wanted the Screamer Killer to have 10 attacks, then they should have given it 4 Monstrous Scything Talons and A6. Then it gets +1A for each of the four, bringing it to 10. It didn't need to be a separate profile.
Having the option (or not) to trade off the talons is irrelevant. We didn't need 7 Scything Talon profiles that all do slightly different things. This isn't rocket science.
*And then three types of Rending Claws (Rending, Monstrous and Massive) and Crushing Claws (ditto for all three). Standardisation and codification would have made this SO much easier and not lead to inane nonsense like two types of Scything Talons for 3 types of Carnifex/Trygon, an units with Scything Talons and not-Scything Talons-that-are-still-obviously-talons (Raveners).
And this is laborious how? The info is all on the sheet. They absolutely could have done it in a more concise manner and it just doesn't matter.
Its laborious because its more to keep track of and it isn't consistent. Yes, its all on the sheet. And if you want your games of 40k to be about double-checking datasheets for which of 13 variants apply, then fine. More power to you, I guess.
But its really obviously a lot less laborious just to have three types and not have the workload. Or trivial stuff like ravener scytals (and their additional attacks) are AP1, but ravener talons are the same thing but the attacks are built in and AP2. Because reasons. Just roll 7 dice with the same stats and move on- because it isn't just about what's on the sheet. Its also a matter of separating dice and mucking about, briefing baffled opponents as to why the big scythe limb is slightly different from that other big scythe limb and why you really do have 7 or 10 or 16 attacks instead of 3 or 6 or 12. Or 13, because the bloody rattle, sorry- the spike, is the exact same statline as a trygon scything talon, but can't just be +1 attack on the profile.
There are at least three different approaches to game design for these datasheets, and sometimes all three are fighting a war on same one. Its an increased load for no point or purpose.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2022/03/16 04:59:08
Hecaton wrote: Necron Warriors should honestly be T4 2w 3+ save.
Or...and hear me out here...If introducing 2W Troops has power creeped the game to the point that Troops aren't valuable unless they're 2W...is it possible...even slightly...that 2W Troops were a bad idea in the first place?
Hecaton wrote: Necron Warriors should honestly be T4 2w 3+ save.
Or...and hear me out here...If introducing 2W Troops has power creeped the game to the point that Troops aren't valuable unless they're 2W...is it possible...even slightly...that 2W Troops were a bad idea in the first place?
It's not about viability. It's about how, in my opinion, Necron warriors should rival Astartes in terms of durability to represent the fluff.
For the reasons already stated: It's unnecessary. Its adds nothing to the game. There was no reason to make 7 versions and 6 pseudo-versions of the same weapon. Why is this so hard to fathom?
Daedalus81 wrote: They absolutely could have done it in a more concise manner and it just doesn't matter.
"Yeah, well, you're probably right but... umm... it doesn't matter! So there!" Your arms got real strong moving all them goal posts.
They wanted different units with different stats to be able to they're damage output unique and modifiable. In reality they could have just written "melee profile" over the names of them all and it wouldn't matter. Either you're asking for all your creatures to have the exact same melee profiles and granularity be damned, or its a none issue and being a stickler over the name.
Hecaton wrote: Necron Warriors should honestly be T4 2w 3+ save.
Or...and hear me out here...If introducing 2W Troops has power creeped the game to the point that Troops aren't valuable unless they're 2W...is it possible...even slightly...that 2W Troops were a bad idea in the first place?
They weren't a bad idea, they just needed to not introduce mindless increases in damage output. Increasing durability is pointless if you immediately invalidate it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/03/16 07:13:11
Dudeface wrote: They wanted different units with different stats to be able to they're damage output unique and modifiable. In reality they could have just written "melee profile" over the names of them all and it wouldn't matter. Either you're asking for all your creatures to have the exact same melee profiles and granularity be damned, or its a none issue and being a stickler over the name.
But this isn't granularity. This is meaningless bloat and, worse, inconsistent.
Trygon gets Trygon Scything Talons
Mawloc gets Mawloc Scything Talons
Trygon Prime gets... also Trygon Scything Talons
Why do these 6 units need 4 different versions of the same weapon, and on top of the ones that Hive Tyrants can get (and their weird pseudo version on the Flyrant). Why do Tyranid Warriors get up to 4 Scytals, but Raveners get just two, and then "Ravener Claws" when they're clearly all Scytals. Why are Hormagaunts not getting Scytals and getting a new pseudo-ScyTal.
Again: This isn't granularity. This is making things complicated for no actual gain.
Dudeface wrote: They wanted different units with different stats to be able to they're damage output unique and modifiable. In reality they could have just written "melee profile" over the names of them all and it wouldn't matter. Either you're asking for all your creatures to have the exact same melee profiles and granularity be damned, or its a none issue and being a stickler over the name.
But this isn't granularity. This is meaningless bloat and, worse, inconsistent.
Trygon gets Trygon Scything Talons
Mawloc gets Mawloc Scything Talons
Trygon Prime gets... also Trygon Scything Talons
Why do these 6 units need 4 different versions of the same weapon, and on top of the ones that Hive Tyrants can get (and their weird pseudo version on the Flyrant). Why do Tyranid Warriors get up to 4 Scytals, but Raveners get just two, and then "Ravener Claws" when they're clearly all Scytals. Why are Hormagaunts not getting Scytals and getting a new pseudo-ScyTal.
Again: This isn't granularity. This is making things complicated for no actual gain.
Screamer killer - the attacks are baked into the profile so the weapon rule needed to be different (not sure why they chose to do that)
The rest is so if they need to change the carnifex melee profile they can do it without changing a screamer killer, trygon or tyrant.
Like I said, of they all were called floppy bunny whacker regardless of stats, the naming convention wouldn't matter. Separate the naming convention from the weapon profiles.
Dudeface wrote: Screamer killer - the attacks are baked into the profile so the weapon rule needed to be different (not sure why they chose to do that)
That's the point, it's bad design.
The rest is so if they need to change the carnifex melee profile...
They never need to change a profile between codexes, they might want to but it's a bad idea.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/03/16 08:00:49
Dudeface wrote: Screamer killer - the attacks are baked into the profile so the weapon rule needed to be different (not sure why they chose to do that)
That's the point, it's bad design.
The rest is so if they need to change the carnifex melee profile...
They never need to change a profile between codexes, they might want to but it's a bad idea.
In that case I expect you to be complaining about devourers as well.
2 profiles with the same name that differ based on what's carrying it.
Dudeface wrote: Screamer killer - the attacks are baked into the profile so the weapon rule needed to be different (not sure why they chose to do that)
That's the point, it's bad design.
The rest is so if they need to change the carnifex melee profile...
They never need to change a profile between codexes, they might want to but it's a bad idea.
In that case I expect you to be complaining about devourers as well.
2 profiles with the same name that differ based on what's carrying it.
I don't complain about S User weapons if that's what they are, Assault X with shots equal to the number of Attacks the model has is fine as well, even more interesting if you have buffs that add Strength or Attacks, something usually only useful in melee, but suddenly useful at range with a weapon with this sort of ability. It's also really fitting for Tyranids because it makes them sort of weird and alien and helps signify how their weapons are living organisms rather than guns.
The rest is so if they need to change the carnifex melee profile they can do it without changing a screamer killer, trygon or tyrant.
If they need to change the profile for a particular creature. . . Why not change the actual profile of the creature, using any one of three melee related options available, WS S or A?
Dudeface wrote: Screamer killer - the attacks are baked into the profile so the weapon rule needed to be different (not sure why they chose to do that)
That's the point, it's bad design.
The rest is so if they need to change the carnifex melee profile...
They never need to change a profile between codexes, they might want to but it's a bad idea.
In that case I expect you to be complaining about devourers as well.
2 profiles with the same name that differ based on what's carrying it.
I don't complain about S User weapons if that's what they are, Assault X with shots equal to the number of Attacks the model has is fine as well, even more interesting if you have buffs that add Strength or Attacks, something usually only useful in melee, but suddenly useful at range with a weapon with this sort of ability. It's also really fitting for Tyranids because it makes them sort of weird and alien and helps signify how their weapons are living organisms rather than guns.
Devourers are assault 5 on raveners (5A) and warriors (3A) then assault 2 on gaunts (1A).
The rest is so if they need to change the carnifex melee profile they can do it without changing a screamer killer, trygon or tyrant.
If they need to change the profile for a particular creature. . . Why not change the actual profile of the creature, using any one of three melee related options available, WS S or A?
What they've done is absolutely unnecessary.
Because if the Scything Talons grant extra attacks, that's the trade off against the higher strength of the crushing claws for a carnifex. If they baked the attacks into the profile, when would you ever take the talons?
If you increased the base strength it interacts differently with the multiplication (Edit: I've just seen they don't multiply anymore, so fair point) on the crushing claws.
If you alter base WS the they're either hitting on a 4+ or 2+ for a carnifex, which is a much bigger swing.
Come on, I'm an idiot and can see why they are as they are.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/03/16 08:41:05
Its a beetle fired via a muscle spasm vs a self-propelled explosive bullet. You tell me.
You know I am glad that my gaunts will be more than glorified wound counters for objective control but even I am searching for a reason for them to be S5 Ap-1...
It is cool, I am gonna enjoy it, but this power creep is getting ludicrous. I mean, it always was but I feel like my tipping point is now the fact that my favorite factions "las gun" is now S5 Ap-1.
So you don't mind bolters being S5 -2 then?
Horror marines having not just wound counters. Or is it "my army got buffed so it's fine"
Daedalus81 wrote: There's two major groups of talons. Those that offer a benefit and those that do not. Within those groups there's big and little versions, basically.
Ok, stop. Don't try to minimise this nonsense, or act like it's not right there in front of you. There are no "major groups" or whatever else you've invented in your attempt to make it out like this isn't a bloated mess.
There are seven different types of Scything Talons in the book:
And then you work out how many total attacks you want your big monster to have, and equip them correctly. So if they wanted the Screamer Killer to have 10 attacks, then they should have given it 4 Monstrous Scything Talons and A6. Then it gets +1A for each of the four, bringing it to 10. It didn't need to be a separate profile.
Having the option (or not) to trade off the talons is irrelevant. We didn't need 7 Scything Talon profiles that all do slightly different things. This isn't rocket science.
*And then three types of Rending Claws (Rending, Monstrous and Massive) and Crushing Claws (ditto for all three). Standardisation and codification would have made this SO much easier and not lead to inane nonsense like two types of Scything Talons for 3 types of Carnifex/Trygon, an units with Scything Talons and not-Scything Talons-that-are-still-obviously-talons (Raveners).
But customizability bad, you know.
God i miss the times where we could buy upgrades for squads.
This also makes me miss the good old nid dex in which we players could customize everything. Those were the times.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
Dudeface wrote: They wanted different units with different stats to be able to they're damage output unique and modifiable. In reality they could have just written "melee profile" over the names of them all and it wouldn't matter. Either you're asking for all your creatures to have the exact same melee profiles and granularity be damned, or its a none issue and being a stickler over the name.
But this isn't granularity. This is meaningless bloat and, worse, inconsistent.
Trygon gets Trygon Scything Talons
Mawloc gets Mawloc Scything Talons
Trygon Prime gets... also Trygon Scything Talons
Why do these 6 units need 4 different versions of the same weapon, and on top of the ones that Hive Tyrants can get (and their weird pseudo version on the Flyrant). Why do Tyranid Warriors get up to 4 Scytals, but Raveners get just two, and then "Ravener Claws" when they're clearly all Scytals. Why are Hormagaunts not getting Scytals and getting a new pseudo-ScyTal.
Again: This isn't granularity. This is making things complicated for no actual gain.
The rest is so if they need to change the carnifex melee profile they can do it without changing a screamer killer, trygon or tyrant.
You'd think that but GW almost never leverages this system when releasing erratas or FAQs. Back in 8th I defended the system as being a great tool for making fine adjustments to the game and as time wore on and GW continued to just shuffle points around instead of changing rules I realised that they will never use the system they have for its singular purpose for existing.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/03/16 09:11:24
Dudeface wrote: They wanted different units with different stats to be able to they're damage output unique and modifiable. In reality they could have just written "melee profile" over the names of them all and it wouldn't matter. Either you're asking for all your creatures to have the exact same melee profiles and granularity be damned, or its a none issue and being a stickler over the name.
But this isn't granularity. This is meaningless bloat and, worse, inconsistent.
Trygon gets Trygon Scything Talons
Mawloc gets Mawloc Scything Talons
Trygon Prime gets... also Trygon Scything Talons
Why do these 6 units need 4 different versions of the same weapon, and on top of the ones that Hive Tyrants can get (and their weird pseudo version on the Flyrant). Why do Tyranid Warriors get up to 4 Scytals, but Raveners get just two, and then "Ravener Claws" when they're clearly all Scytals. Why are Hormagaunts not getting Scytals and getting a new pseudo-ScyTal.
Again: This isn't granularity. This is making things complicated for no actual gain.
The rest is so if they need to change the carnifex melee profile they can do it without changing a screamer killer, trygon or tyrant.
You'd think that but GW almost never leverages this system when releasing erratas or FAQs. Back in 8th I defended the system as being a great tool for making fine adjustments to the game and as time wore on and GW continued to just shuffle points around instead of changing rules I realised that they will never use the system they have for its singular purpose for existing.
I'm inclined to agree, they're very hands off with making changes, the intent of the system is both good and clear. Still, people seemingly disagree that the potential this system has is useful as demonstrated.
Dudeface wrote: Screamer killer - the attacks are baked into the profile so the weapon rule needed to be different (not sure why they chose to do that)
That's the point, it's bad design.
The rest is so if they need to change the carnifex melee profile...
They never need to change a profile between codexes, they might want to but it's a bad idea.
In that case I expect you to be complaining about devourers as well.
2 profiles with the same name that differ based on what's carrying it.
I don't complain about S User weapons if that's what they are, Assault X with shots equal to the number of Attacks the model has is fine as well, even more interesting if you have buffs that add Strength or Attacks, something usually only useful in melee, but suddenly useful at range with a weapon with this sort of ability. It's also really fitting for Tyranids because it makes them sort of weird and alien and helps signify how their weapons are living organisms rather than guns.
Devourers are assault 5 on raveners (5A) and warriors (3A) then assault 2 on gaunts (1A).
I am going to go find a sad story to cry to, I feel like I need it.
Dudeface wrote: I'm inclined to agree, they're very hands off with making changes, the intent of the system is both good and clear. Still, people seemingly disagree that the potential this system has is useful as demonstrated.
The potential is only relevant if its used. If its not used it becomes just bloat. And that is the issue, GW doesn't even use their own system.
Other games use bespoke weapons for each unit, including my one of my favourite games - Star Wars Legion.
Star Wars Legion goes so far as to have explictly the same weapon be very different in different user's hands. "B1 E-5 blaster" is half as effective as "BX E-5 blaster" for example.
This is quite reasonable for a few reasons.
- armies tend to be smaller with fewer unique units, there's less to memorise in any given battle.
- weapons are simpler, effectively they're just 1 stat and maybe some special rules. Essentially, they've crunched ballistic skill directly into the weapon and condensed it all into one overall attack stat.
- Every box gives you a reference card for the unit to lay out during games.
40k currently has none of those mitigations, so slapping every model with a unique weapon with ~4 relevant stats on top of every model's unique statline with it's own ~3 relevant stats is just adding pointless bloat.
It's clear that they don't consider the whole. They look at one datasheet and write it. Then they look at another and write it. This is why you get nonsense like Screamer Killers getting their own bespoke talons.
