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.
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.
We've had two editions with this system (it existed in some form previously but 8th is when things got really out of hand). Not once that I can remember has GW used this granularity to do what you're suggesting. It's the same reason people give to defend bespoke special rules over USRs: "but now they can change one rule without affecting all the others". Except GW have never done that either. In fact, when they needed to change all the FNP rules at the start of 8th their system made it more difficult. I think we can convincingly show the current system has never proven to have any advantages.
Someone already pointed out we have WS, S and A to modify a unit's effectiveness in close combat, as well as their weapons. We don't need 7 different weapons that all do more or less the same thing in order to allow more granularity for changing effectiveness. I'd argue having fewer, but more distinct, weapon options allows for more effective levers to pull in combination with the base stats.
As for why this is bad since all the info is on the datasheet? I used to be able to play games of 40k without checking my Codex once. I knew all my unit and weapon stats, because the number of each was much lower than it is now. I even knew most of my regular opponents' stats. Now? Barely a phase goes by without having to check my own stats and special rules or query my opponent's.
kirotheavenger wrote: 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.
Lets be real, if GW streamlined weapons down like that (and lets be clear, that basically means doing away with the WS/BS stats and completely reworking the games existing resolution mechanic) there would be mass outrage and complaints about them "dumbing down" the game.
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
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"
I mean, you have Heavy Intercessors so...you kind of already do?
Also, did you even read my post? I think it is silly that fleshborers are S5 AP-1 now but it's not like anything I say or do will change GW at this point so I am just gonna roll with it.
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.
We've had two editions with this system (it existed in some form previously but 8th is when things got really out of hand). Not once that I can remember has GW used this granularity to do what you're suggesting. It's the same reason people give to defend bespoke special rules over USRs: "but now they can change one rule without affecting all the others". Except GW have never done that either. In fact, when they needed to change all the FNP rules at the start of 8th their system made it more difficult. I think we can convincingly show the current system has never proven to have any advantages.
Someone already pointed out we have WS, S and A to modify a unit's effectiveness in close combat, as well as their weapons. We don't need 7 different weapons that all do more or less the same thing in order to allow more granularity for changing effectiveness. I'd argue having fewer, but more distinct, weapon options allows for more effective levers to pull in combination with the base stats.
As for why this is bad since all the info is on the datasheet? I used to be able to play games of 40k without checking my Codex once. I knew all my unit and weapon stats, because the number of each was much lower than it is now. I even knew most of my regular opponents' stats. Now? Barely a phase goes by without having to check my own stats and special rules or query my opponent's.
Just because they don't use it to their advantage it doesn't suddenly make the system in place bad. Their handling of USR's was just as hamfisted and poorly thought out as their inability to tweak the granular system to their advantage. The current system has advantages, they're just not using them. Note that doesn't make it better either, just different.
To take an example in hand for the different weapon stats, looking at the hive tyrant:
Base (because it can be equipped with no CC weapon) WWS2+, S7, 5A - already you can't buff WS Monstrous Scy talons - S:user AP-3 D2 an extra attack with each talon. It can have 2 of these but you want the make different weapons have different roles, so you don't want an unarmed tyrant with 7A and also because:
Bonesword - S+4 AP-3 D3 - if you increase attacks this becomes the "better option by default" and the talons cease to have a purpose if you don't remove them. Can't bake the strength into the unit because it incidentally buffs the base model and scy talons
To apply the logic of what happens when you apply these to a trygon prime:
Currently it has the attacks baked in as requested (12 attacks) but same profile otherwise. When and why is this relevant - if there are abilities that target the models attack stat, disable weapons, limit to attacking with one weapon etc. the trygon interacts differently. If they had base 6 attacks with 6 monstrous scything talons you have the same output profile but with different interactions with other game rules and mechanics. I'm not saying GW use or leverage all of this, it's just to highlight situations where the granularity can factor in.
I understand and fondly remember the "every power weapon does the same thing" days, but there are pros and cons to both states and GW needs to leverage them better.
kirotheavenger wrote: 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.
Lets be real, if GW streamlined weapons down like that (and lets be clear, that basically means doing away with the WS/BS stats and completely reworking the games existing resolution mechanic) there would be mass outrage and complaints about them "dumbing down" the game.
Isn't this the perpetual catch 22 of this community "I want my unit to feel unique and powerful, has options and a defined purpose" immediately followed by "god why do intercessors have 3 different bolt weapons for 3 different roles?" or "why don't all my units share the same CCW making it crap on some of them and a default pick on others but easy to remember?"
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/03/16 13:00:50
i mean, fly *should* give an advantage over being on foot
Should give a mobility advantage but a survivability disadvantage. In most sci fi settings predictable short flight plans in small arms range are death for the unfortunate flying creature.
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.
We've had two editions with this system (it existed in some form previously but 8th is when things got really out of hand). Not once that I can remember has GW used this granularity to do what you're suggesting. It's the same reason people give to defend bespoke special rules over USRs: "but now they can change one rule without affecting all the others". Except GW have never done that either. In fact, when they needed to change all the FNP rules at the start of 8th their system made it more difficult. I think we can convincingly show the current system has never proven to have any advantages.
Someone already pointed out we have WS, S and A to modify a unit's effectiveness in close combat, as well as their weapons. We don't need 7 different weapons that all do more or less the same thing in order to allow more granularity for changing effectiveness. I'd argue having fewer, but more distinct, weapon options allows for more effective levers to pull in combination with the base stats.
As for why this is bad since all the info is on the datasheet? I used to be able to play games of 40k without checking my Codex once. I knew all my unit and weapon stats, because the number of each was much lower than it is now. I even knew most of my regular opponents' stats. Now? Barely a phase goes by without having to check my own stats and special rules or query my opponent's.
Just because they don't use it to their advantage it doesn't suddenly make the system in place bad. Their handling of USR's was just as hamfisted and poorly thought out as their inability to tweak the granular system to their advantage. The current system has advantages, they're just not using them. Note that doesn't make it better either, just different.
To take an example in hand for the different weapon stats, looking at the hive tyrant:
Base (because it can be equipped with no CC weapon) WWS2+, S7, 5A - already you can't buff WS Monstrous Scy talons - S:user AP-3 D2 an extra attack with each talon. It can have 2 of these but you want the make different weapons have different roles, so you don't want an unarmed tyrant with 7A and also because:
Bonesword - S+4 AP-3 D3 - if you increase attacks this becomes the "better option by default" and the talons cease to have a purpose if you don't remove them. Can't bake the strength into the unit because it incidentally buffs the base model and scy talons
To apply the logic of what happens when you apply these to a trygon prime:
Currently it has the attacks baked in as requested (12 attacks) but same profile otherwise. When and why is this relevant - if there are abilities that target the models attack stat, disable weapons, limit to attacking with one weapon etc. the trygon interacts differently. If they had base 6 attacks with 6 monstrous scything talons you have the same output profile but with different interactions with other game rules and mechanics. I'm not saying GW use or leverage all of this, it's just to highlight situations where the granularity can factor in.
I understand and fondly remember the "every power weapon does the same thing" days, but there are pros and cons to both states and GW needs to leverage them better.
kirotheavenger wrote: 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.
Lets be real, if GW streamlined weapons down like that (and lets be clear, that basically means doing away with the WS/BS stats and completely reworking the games existing resolution mechanic) there would be mass outrage and complaints about them "dumbing down" the game.
Isn't this the perpetual catch 22 of this community "I want my unit to feel unique and powerful, has options and a defined purpose" immediately followed by "god why do intercessors have 3 different bolt weapons for 3 different roles?" or "why don't all my units share the same CCW making it crap on some of them and a default pick on others but easy to remember?"
If you go to a restaurant and you got a menu without separate starters, main courses and deserts but had 12 pages listing all the possible combinations as single choices you would say its a bad menu despite the system of starter/main/desert allowing different combinations of dinner being a generally recognised good thing.
A granular system isn't bad in and of itself, GW's system is bad because it isn't used.
Yes GW could leverage it better, but that is the essence of the complaint. They aren't. And if they aren't doing that then the system is more trouble then its worth.
As for your other point, the game did fine for decades without 60 different bolt weapons and 28 bespoke, mostly similar but slightly different special rules.
You can have powerful, unique and purposeful units without the bloat. We know its possible, because we already had it.
ccs wrote: Upcoming codex must be relatively fine if all you've got to complain about for several pages is how many names they've given talons/scathing talons.
ccs wrote: Upcoming codex must be relatively fine if all you've got to complain about for several pages is how many names they've given talons/scathing talons.
Honestly, besides the fact that the book may be too strong, as others have put it, this is the best codex that Nids have gotten in 20+ years. Yeah, you may be pissed about your Flyrant or your nerfed Hive Guard, but that's par for the course. Everything being generally usable is a huge, huge win and in the balance of things, Nids players seem to be very happy (edit: I know I am!)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/03/16 13:49:39
ccs wrote: Upcoming codex must be relatively fine if all you've got to complain about for several pages is how many names they've given talons/scathing talons.
Probably the best observation of anyone for 2-3 pages.
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.
Absolutely on point.
Rather than allowing hobbyists to craft their own dudes, GW needs us to buy and play with their monopose meh dudes, …
No model no rules => rigid rules for every permutation of model
Another reason earliest editions with some house rules were so much better.
Dudeface wrote: Isn't this the perpetual catch 22 of this community "I want my unit to feel unique and powerful, has options and a defined purpose" immediately followed by "god why do intercessors have 3 different bolt weapons for 3 different roles?" or "why don't all my units share the same CCW making it crap on some of them and a default pick on others but easy to remember?"
It's only a Catch-22 if you don't see any difference between role-defining options, trap options, and redundant options.
I like the different weapons on the Tyrannofex. There's a long-range tank-buster, a short-range auto-hit spray attack that melts armor and kills heavy infantry, and a medium-range high-volume dakka gun for killing chaff. They all do very different things.
I don't like how the melee weapons on Tyranid Warriors boil down to 'take Boneswords or you're wrong', because they're by far the best choice and cost the same as the others.
I like how Firstborn units have options for different special and heavy weapons that give them specific capabilities. A unit of Devastators with Heavy Bolters has a very different role from a unit of Devastators with Multi-Meltas.
I don't like how Primaris units have options for three different primary weapons that are all ultimately redundant to one another, because they all do the same thing with minor variation. A unit of Eradicators isn't particularly different whether they're armed with Melta Rifles, Heavy Melta Rifles, or Multi-Meltas. They're all S8/AP-4 24" melta weapons, they all fulfill the same role.
It's not a binary options good/options bad. Meaningful options that give a unit a distinct role are good. Options that provide only minor variation within a defined role, or consist of objectively right and wrong choices, are bad.
Edit: And also, HBMC is completely right about how the cognitive burden of this new 'Nids codex could be reduced, and that gets into the other issue with a lot of the options GW is giving lately. Firstborn Marines having a limited roster of weapons allowed Tacticals and Devastators to share the same set of weapons and yet fulfill very different roles through basic composition and abilities. Having three usually bespoke weapons for each Primaris unit gives you a lot more to remember, and leads directly into the 'more bolt weapons than the old codices had weapons' issue.
Similarly, the Tyranids codex often had units sharing the same weapon profile. Devourers on Termagants were essentially a heavy weapon, while Devourers on Warriors were your default starting loadout. Spinefists had the same profile on Warriors, Termagants, and Raveners, but the number of shots was tied to their attacks so they didn't all perform the same. These provided options without massive cognitive burden, because you only had one statline to remember. In the new codex, each of these has a bespoke weapon profile- Devourers on Termagants have completely different stats from Devourers on Warriors. There's a lot more to remember and keep track of, but it isn't providing more options.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/03/16 14:28:15
Dudeface wrote: ...Isn't this the perpetual catch 22 of this community "I want my unit to feel unique and powerful, has options and a defined purpose" immediately followed by "god why do intercessors have 3 different bolt weapons for 3 different roles?" or "why don't all my units share the same CCW making it crap on some of them and a default pick on others but easy to remember?"
The perpetual catch-22 is the community wanting their units to feel unique and powerful, like they have options and a defined purpose, followed by GW giving us 'options' where one is better than the others 97% of the time, writing more unique names for identical or almost-identical profiles, and completely throwing out fifteen years of progress on fixing that exact shared-CCW balance problem you're talking about there with differential pricing depending on units' Attacks stat in favor of writing a bunch of slightly different weapon profiles.
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.
*shrug* I just literally don't have such a problem with it. Games will not be slowed down. All Carnifex types will be AP3 D3. Trygon Talons are different from Mawloc Talons - so both Trygons got Trygon Talons and Mawloc got Mawloc...the humanity.
I'm also fairly certain they didn't want to give the Trygon Prime access to the relic talons when it already has 12 attacks. The Mawloc is the same type as regular scything talons ( AP1 D1 ) so they could have counted its arms, say it was equipped with 6 scything talons, but then it would be affected by any rules that would affect scything talons if they were to write those in some supplement.
Isn't this the perpetual catch 22 of this community "I want my unit to feel unique and powerful, has options and a defined purpose" immediately followed by "god why do intercessors have 3 different bolt weapons for 3 different roles?" or "why don't all my units share the same CCW making it crap on some of them and a default pick on others but easy to remember?"
At this point I am increasingly convinced the 2 marine armies (tinys and primaris) need to be split off from each other. The Primaris range is big enough now. Throw in some fluff about chapters that haven't been able to upgrade, and Rob saying tactical operations should be one or the other, and you can balance things and and have two sanely sized Codex.
Are people really complaining about the three Bolt weapons Intercessors get and then saying "ackchually Tactical plethora of weapons fine"? That's not the problem. The problem is Heavy Intercessors being given those weapons but S5 just because. Both Tacticool Marines are separate entries and have different weapons just because.
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.
Huh? I'm not saying that the Talons can't grant extra attacks. I'm saying that if a generic Talons isn't cutting it, then you modify the base model instead. If that makes Claws more nasty, then you can also modify the points for the Claws to make sense, or modify the models base cost. There are enough places to make modifications while still using generic/universally designed weapons.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rihgu wrote: Granularity is great, except for when it's bad. Hrmm.
Correct, because you can do it well, but you can also do it dumb.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/03/16 15:25:33
I don't like how Primaris units have options for three different primary weapons that are all ultimately redundant to one another, because they all do the same thing with minor variation. A unit of Eradicators isn't particularly different whether they're armed with Melta Rifles, Heavy Melta Rifles, or Multi-Meltas. They're all S8/AP-4 24" melta weapons, they all fulfill the same role.
It's not a binary options good/options bad. Meaningful options that give a unit a distinct role are good. Options that provide only minor variation within a defined role, or consist of objectively right and wrong choices, are bad.
Stalker Bolt Rifles hang back and snipe and don't like to move.
Auto Bolt Rifles want to move forward.
Bolt Rifles sit in between those.
I am building an IF army using Heavy Intercessors with the Auto Bolt Rifle version, because I want to max shots and leverage explosions as much as I can. I want to be in melee where I can turn those into pistol shots and lean into the durability by using Shield Unwavering for +1Sv and +1A.
That unit would operate a little differently than Heavy Intercessors in Iron Hands who might opt for the heavy versions and sit back with a 5++/5+++.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
EviscerationPlague wrote: Are people really complaining about the three Bolt weapons Intercessors get and then saying "ackchually Tactical plethora of weapons fine"? That's not the problem. The problem is Heavy Intercessors being given those weapons but S5 just because. Both Tacticool Marines are separate entries and have different weapons just because.
Heavy Intercessors have S5, because if they didn't they'd be pretty anemic and there would be no point to having them other than just being a durability upgrade.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/03/16 15:34:54
I keep having flashbacks to how heavy intercessors were going to be S5 because it would be "necessary" to counter T5 Orks. (Brilliant GW, you've done it again, oh wait no heavy intercessors were dreadful from the moment their stat line was leaked and nothing has been done to change that.)
Generally speaking, you want a rough balance of offense and defense. Unfortunately GW has completely abandoned that to all in on offense upgrades - so basically any assault unit worth taking now gets 100%+ returns, and shooting is around 50-70%.
Daedalus81 wrote: Heavy Intercessors have S5, because if they didn't they'd be pretty anemic and there would be no point to having them other than just being a durability upgrade.
So the unit should not exist in the first place. I think you will find a lot of people who would agree with that.
A sculptor made both the normal and the heavy primaris look to give the boss choice to pick and the boss said, great make em both. Causing the rules writer to face palm as he now has to figure out a use for a completely redundant unit.
I don't like how Primaris units have options for three different primary weapons that are all ultimately redundant to one another, because they all do the same thing with minor variation. A unit of Eradicators isn't particularly different whether they're armed with Melta Rifles, Heavy Melta Rifles, or Multi-Meltas. They're all S8/AP-4 24" melta weapons, they all fulfill the same role.
It's not a binary options good/options bad. Meaningful options that give a unit a distinct role are good. Options that provide only minor variation within a defined role, or consist of objectively right and wrong choices, are bad.
Stalker Bolt Rifles hang back and snipe and don't like to move.
Auto Bolt Rifles want to move forward.
Bolt Rifles sit in between those.
All of which provide less variation in capability than the heavy/special options granted to a Tac squad.
In fact with Bolter discipline, the difference between heavy bolt rifle and plain bolt rifle get pretty minimal.
Daedalus81 wrote: Heavy Intercessors have S5, because if they didn't they'd be pretty anemic and there would be no point to having them other than just being a durability upgrade.
So the unit should not exist in the first place. I think you will find a lot of people who would agree with that.
A sculptor made both the normal and the heavy primaris look to give the boss choice to pick and the boss said, great make em both. Causing the rules writer to face palm as he now has to figure out a use for a completely redundant unit.
I mean you're not wrong, but they're going to find angles to make new space marines regardless.
ccs wrote: Upcoming codex must be relatively fine if all you've got to complain about for several pages is how many names they've given talons/scathing talons.
Honestly, besides the fact that the book may be too strong, as others have put it, this is the best codex that Nids have gotten in 20+ years. Yeah, you may be pissed about your Flyrant or your nerfed Hive Guard, but that's par for the course. Everything being generally usable is a huge, huge win and in the balance of things, Nids players seem to be very happy (edit: I know I am!)
Yeah, while I wish I wasn't limited to 0-1 HT per detachment (And the swarmlord not being a Supreme commander for whatever reason) There are so many models and configurations that I am excited to put on the table.
I love that there are people in this thread arguing that we either only get options the terrible way GW does them or none at all. There's no inbetween that could possibly exist.
Daedalus81 wrote: Heavy Intercessors have S5, because if they didn't they'd be pretty anemic and there would be no point to having them other than just being a durability upgrade.
So the unit should not exist in the first place. I think you will find a lot of people who would agree with that.
A sculptor made both the normal and the heavy primaris look to give the boss choice to pick and the boss said, great make em both. Causing the rules writer to face palm as he now has to figure out a use for a completely redundant unit.
The unit can exist, it just doesn't need S5 guns because. They're not "anemic", and paying for the durability alone is fine.
Sim-Life wrote: I love that there are people in this thread arguing that we either only get options the terrible way GW does them or none at all. There's no inbetween that could possibly exist.
So much this. Especially when we have cases in the past where GW did better.
I fact we have cases right now that are better, you only have to look at firstborn units. Normal, every day, run-of-the-mill, holy, Bolters, and then a menu of Special/Heavies shared by every unit.
Sim-Life wrote: I love that there are people in this thread arguing that we either only get options the terrible way GW does them or none at all. There's no inbetween that could possibly exist.
So much this. Especially when we have cases in the past where GW did better.
I fact we have cases right now that are better, you only have to look at firstborn units. Normal, every day, run-of-the-mill, holy, Bolters, and then a menu of Special/Heavies shared by every unit.
Daedalus81 wrote: Stalker Bolt Rifles hang back and snipe and don't like to move.
Auto Bolt Rifles want to move forward.
Bolt Rifles sit in between those.
Sure.
But when a Stalker Bolt Rifle on the move does the exact same damage to MEQs as an Auto Bolt Rifle, an Auto Bolt Rifle staying stationary can still hit anything that leaves the opponent's deployment zone, the basic Bolt Rifle has a stronger stay-stationary-far-away incentive than the Stalker, and the shortest-ranged 'assault' option has 2/3 the range of the 'sniping' weapon, the choice of weapon doesn't really dictate the role of the unit, it just tweaks some of the optimizations.
You could remove the Stalker Bolt Rifle and Auto Bolt Rifle entirely, have them all just be treated as different visual variants of Bolt Rifle (like we've done with various marks of regular bolters or lasguns for decades now), and it wouldn't affect all that much. That weapon option doesn't have nearly the impact that choosing to take a lascannon or omit a heavy weapon entirely does for Tacticals.
Meanwhile Heavy Intercessors have five unique weapons in addition to the (surprisingly) normal and reused heavy bolter, but ultimately they're just Intercessors+. If you stripped out all of those options and reduced them to just a Gravis squad all carrying heavy bolters, they'd be more distinct as a unit despite the loss of options.
Options aren't inherently good or bad, it all depends on how much you're actually getting in return for the increase in complexity.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/03/16 19:17:43
Thousand Sons 4000+
