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 fimd it kind of funny that Daed is arguing that multiple different talons makes the game more "fun" when having to check codexes every few minutes is exactly one of the thing dragging 40k down for a lot of people.

The reason I preferred older editions was the "sameyness" you think is so bad. It was easier to remember so less time was spent looking up rules and more time playing the game or (God forbid) talking to your opponent.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I don't see any reason why that couldn't be investigated and implemented if meritable.

"Always with you what cannot be done."

Just because I don't need to force something to be simpler like the good old days doesn't mean that I think it can't be done. I just think it's unnecessary and much less interesting.

AP doesn't address units with high invulnerable saves or additional wounds. It offers little extra in context for a model that will pay the same points as 6 Warriors and fight hardly any better. If you were to give scytals and vcs sclaing for AP then Warriors would fight about three times as hard and shoot almost twice as hard as a Tyrant, but a little less AP for the same points. Considering Warriors can get cover and move through buildings they're a lot more flexible. And then you'd have to deal with the rules that provide extra strength.

It would be such a hamfisted change for little benefit.

The above post makes so many assumptions it's not worth the time to bother untangling them. Do points costs remain the same? Is AP the only thing that's different between the weapons? Are there no other ways to make the HT more competetive in response to Warriors? Really Daed, this is just foot-dragging.

Calling "hamfisted" after HBMC layed out the absolutely horrendous array of various Talons is particularly silly.

Out of curiosity, does the current big VC do anything to address units with invuln saves? What's the difference between the two guns currently, that makes them so "interesting".

 Daedalus81 wrote:
That's pretty much what the efforts here are trying to do - minimize the difference between units so it's easier to remember.

No, they're not. That is a straw man.

They/we are trying to construct comparable distinctions between units within a simpler rules framework. Achieve the same general outcome while reducing cognitive burden. We don't actually care about the specific interrelation of numbers that comprise the mechanics as long as the output is approximately correct. In programming terms this is called 'refactoring'.

It is entirely possible to make Scything Talons on big creatures function differently from Scything Talons on small creatures, and make Scything Talons on Carnifexes function differently from Scything Talons on Hive Tyrants, without creating a half dozen different weapon profiles with minute and ultimately pointless differences.

And this is not a tiny part of the book; GW's dogged insistence on adding more minutiae and more complexity and more crap to remember in lieu of actual depth is a recurring problem. It's a core issue with how they approach design and the result is an unwieldy, bloated mess.

 catbarf wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
That's pretty much what the efforts here are trying to do - minimize the difference between units so it's easier to remember.

No, they're not. That is a straw man.

They/we are trying to construct comparable distinctions between units within a simpler rules framework. Achieve the same general outcome while reducing cognitive burden. We don't actually care about the specific interrelation of numbers that comprise the mechanics as long as the output is approximately correct. In programming terms this is called 'refactoring'.

It is entirely possible to make Scything Talons on big creatures function differently from Scything Talons on small creatures, and make Scything Talons on Carnifexes function differently from Scything Talons on Hive Tyrants, without creating a half dozen different weapon profiles with minute and ultimately pointless differences.

And this is not a tiny part of the book; GW's dogged insistence on adding more minutiae and more complexity and more crap to remember in lieu of actual depth is a recurring problem. It's a core issue with how they approach design and the result is an unwieldy, bloated mess.

Literally all the other suggestions thus far revolve around making weapon profiles exactly the same for all models or with scaling AP. So, no, it isn't a strawman.

But feel free to write those rules that make those weapons distinct across multiple models and use the same weapon profile without making it simply rearranging the chairs on the titanic.

Literally all?

I was in favour of ScyTals/Monstrous ScyTals/Massive ScyTals.

That lets you cover normal bugs (up to Warrior/Ravener size), the big things (Tyrants, Trygons, Carnifexes) and the really big things (Tervitons, Maleceptor, hell even Hierodules).

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Literally all the other suggestions thus far revolve around making weapon profiles exactly the same for all models or with scaling AP. So, no, it isn't a strawman.

Mmm. . . No. Tiers of generic weapons were suggested as well. Possible interaction with other keywords, such as Monster, was also implied. There are all sorts of ways to tackle it, it's not rocket science.

And any of these solutions would be better than 13 separate weapon profiles (applied in an inconsistent and often contradictory or illogical manner) to all achieve roughly the same result.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And any of these solutions would be better than 13 separate weapon profiles (applied in an inconsistent and often contradictory or illogical manner) to all achieve roughly the same result.

Indeed.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Literally all the other suggestions thus far revolve around making weapon profiles exactly the same for all models

Some people have suggested consolidated profiles, but that doesn't mean identical actual melee output. Nobody's saying a Hormagaunt should have identical melee output to a Hive Tyrant.

What people are actually suggesting are a combination of consolidated profiles (like we had last edition- hands up Tyranids players, who felt that our weapon choices were boring and the fix was to add pointless bespoke variants?) and adjusting base model stats so that two models with the same weapon have different actual performance.

That accomplishes the desired end state of giving different units different roles and different capabilities while reducing cognitive burden and improving learnability.

Do you also feel that Chaplains and Chapter Masters need different powerfist profiles to avoid it being 'boring', or is it okay that they can use the same weapon in different ways?

Crozius Arcanum
Terminator Crozius Arcanum
Primaris Crozius Arcanum
And then, to make it fit with what they did with ScyTals, the Primaris Biker Chaplain has a Terminator Crozius Arcanum!

And so on...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Crozius Arcanum
Terminator Crozius Arcanum
Primaris Crozius Arcanum
And then, to make it fit with what they did with ScyTals, the Primaris Biker Chaplain has a Terminator Crozius Arcanum!

And so on...

How clean! No fisthams at all!

I don't know why - but I like the aesthetical concept of Gorgon/Hydra rules, as compared with say Eldar where it feels very much "crunch" all the way down. And if the crunch is inferior, the chapter is dead to me.

I'm sure someone else would interpret it differently "no you see Iyanden is tougher, and Saim Hann is faster" but... yeah. Can't believe the 170 Hormagaunt builds will work, but go nuts.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
That's pretty much what the efforts here are trying to do - minimize the difference between units so it's easier to remember.

No, they're not. That is a straw man.

They/we are trying to construct comparable distinctions between units within a simpler rules framework. Achieve the same general outcome while reducing cognitive burden. We don't actually care about the specific interrelation of numbers that comprise the mechanics as long as the output is approximately correct. In programming terms this is called 'refactoring'.

It is entirely possible to make Scything Talons on big creatures function differently from Scything Talons on small creatures, and make Scything Talons on Carnifexes function differently from Scything Talons on Hive Tyrants, without creating a half dozen different weapon profiles with minute and ultimately pointless differences.

And this is not a tiny part of the book; GW's dogged insistence on adding more minutiae and more complexity and more crap to remember in lieu of actual depth is a recurring problem. It's a core issue with how they approach design and the result is an unwieldy, bloated mess.

Literally all the other suggestions thus far revolve around making weapon profiles exactly the same for all models or with scaling AP. So, no, it isn't a strawman.

If its not a strawman, then you're willingly or unwillingly not comprehending anything anyone is saying to you. Because even 'figurative literal' is hanging its head in shame at that assertion.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Literally all the other suggestions thus far revolve around making weapon profiles exactly the same for all models or with scaling AP. So, no, it isn't a strawman.

Mmm. . . No. Tiers of generic weapons were suggested as well. Possible interaction with other keywords, such as Monster, was also implied. There are all sorts of ways to tackle it, it's not rocket science.

Right - tiers, which as stated wasn't practical, because things like the Trygon Prime can't be allowed to have the relic among other points made.

If you add keywords that change the way the weapon works and then you have to look at the datasheet...what is even the benefit? You'd otherwise have to write a literal paragraph on the weapon entry otherwise, which doesn't really sound great.

Why aren't tiers practical?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Right - tiers, which as stated wasn't practical, because things like the Trygon Prime can't be allowed to have the relic among other points made.

Surely one can come up with a way to restrict Relics from Trygon Primes if it is such a problem. "A Trygon Prime may not be given a Relic." Or, just allow it anyways. Why not?

If you add keywords that change the way the weapon works and then you have to look at the datasheet...what is even the benefit? You'd otherwise have to write a literal paragraph on the weapon entry otherwise, which doesn't really sound great.

Do you have to look at the datasheet to remind yourself that a Hive Tyrant is a Monster?

"Literal paragraph"? Or like, just a single sentence? I can do it with one!

"Models armed with a Venom Cannon with the MONSTER keyword roll an extra D3 for damage, three Mortal Wounds, plus 4 strength and whatever else Daedelus requires for it to be 'interesting'."

 catbarf wrote:
Nobody's saying a Hormagaunt should have identical melee output to a Hive Tyrant.

No, but it was stated at some point that the weapon profile should be AP1 D1 for Scytals on all models and they just benefit from strength.

Do you also feel that Chaplains and Chapter Masters need different powerfist profiles to avoid it being 'boring', or is it okay that they can use the same weapon in different ways?

Slightly confused. Chaplains don't have power fists. Did the Primaris Chaplain need the Absolvor Bolt Pistol? Absolutely not ( despite bolt pistols being about the most pointless gun in the game ), but it doesn't define the unit. A Chaplain can pray all day from safety. A Hive Tyrant needs to be out there fighting since one psychic power and reroll 1s is not an effective use of those points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

"Models armed with a Venom Cannon with the MONSTER keyword roll an extra D3 for damage, three Mortal Wounds, plus 4 strength and whatever else Daedelus requires for it to be 'interesting'."[/i]

Right --

You'd otherwise have to write a literal paragraph on the weapon entry otherwise, which doesn't really sound great.

You're going to be looking at the datasheet at some point anyway. Especially during initial games. I really don't think the current rules are outside the cognitive capabilities of most people.

Anyway...we could go in circles all day and I need to get some painting done. I concede.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
No, but it was stated at some point that the weapon profile should be AP1 D1 for Scytals on all models and they just benefit from strength.

Ok, and? One person said that, and you're making it out as if that's the entire discussion.

As Carbarf has being saying: That's a strawman.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Slightly confused. Chaplains don't have power fists.

Now you're being intentionally disingenuous and, dare I say it, arguing in bad faith. The point isn't whether Chaplains can or cannot have Power Fists (and, as an aside, they actually can!), its whether the (hypothetical or otherwise) Power Fist on a Chaplain should be different in some way to the Power Fist on a Captain.

How do you not get that?

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I concede.

Buddy, you conceded a few pages back when you wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
They absolutely could have done it in a more concise manner and it just doesn't matter.

Firstborn (true) Chaplains can have Powerfists.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Firstborn (true) Chaplains can have Powerfists.

Primaris Chaplains have the Pimp Cane Crozius. I consider that more important.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Firstborn (true) Chaplains can have Powerfists.

Primaris Chaplains have the Pimp Cane Crozius. I consider that more important.

Well it better be good because ITS ALL THEY CAN GET.

 Insectum7 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Firstborn (true) Chaplains can have Powerfists.

Primaris Chaplains have the Pimp Cane Crozius. I consider that more important.

Well it better be good because ITS ALL THEY CAN GET.

Just wait until they get the 'Primaris Chaplain with Swords Now' model, like the BRAND NEW and TOTALLY DIFFERENT Standard Bearer and Captain. They can sneak in a bonus dual wielded Cawlicious Crozius like the bonus power fist for the model that already has a weapon that's basically a power fist.

After all: Malibu Stacey needs her new hat!

The_Real_Chris wrote:


I suspect they plan to keep the current lot and not do new ones for aircraft,

So do I, But I also think they're going to either squat the firstborn, or get rid of the segregation entirely.

buff 1+ of the existing vehicles to have an AA and don't intend to do a Rhino equivalent (just stick with the existing 10 and 6 transport option floating boxes).

The Impulsor has an AA option, but its not very good, just like it has a half Whirlwind and Half Razorback option. And none of that will hold up if or more likely when we go back to mechanized infantry hammer and/or free Transports. Free Repulsors would be problematic.

I wonder if they are going to do jump packs for their assault marines. They might have though the relaxed looking chaps with packs were enough.

I think they'll have to eventually but they aren't ready to yet. I think it became a foregone conclusion when Shrike "crossed the Rubicon".

A quick gander at their options shows a full range. They don't need analogues of everything tiny marines had.

Sure they could torque off their customers if they want. Blood Angels are fluffed around the Jump Pack - and already have ground pounder Primaris Death Company when I suspect they were going to phase out Death Company - remember originally it was claimed Primaris don't suffer from the flaws. Now they do. Next they'll get to fly plus we should see some Primaris Sanguinary Guard, and Vanguard Vets.

Ignoring forgeworld they 'merely' have
HQ

No Captain or Lieutenant for Ravenwing or White Scar biker equivalents.
No Assault/Vanguard Marine equivalents(FLY JUMPPACK) for Blood Angels or Ravenguard. Wolf Guard will be problematic as well.
No Bodyguard Rule unit outside of one Chapter Specific.
No Company/Chapter Champion - no command on bikes at all for Ravenwing/WhiteScars
No Shoot-inator equivalent for Deathwing/WolfGuard - Aggressors/Gravis are close but missing the Deep Strike and Veteran aspects- as well as Gravis LT, Gravis Librarian, Gravis Chaplain
No Flying/Aircraft Transport

Let we forget, that one codex feeds into what 8? supplements that all push out a different flavor and need the units to continue that flavor.

 Sim-Life wrote:
I fimd it kind of funny that Daed is arguing that multiple different talons makes the game more "fun" when having to check codexes every few minutes is exactly one of the thing dragging 40k down for a lot of people.

The reason I preferred older editions was the "sameyness" you think is so bad. It was easier to remember so less time was spent looking up rules and more time playing the game or (God forbid) talking to your opponent.

Additionally, when weapons and units have less variation between them, the variations they have actually matter more, even if those variations are quite small. For example, long-ranged anti-tank in 9th has a base statline somewhere around S8/9 AP-3/-4 Dd6. Better weapons then get Dd3+3 and really, really good weapons might have Dd6+3. Then GW think that's not good enough and the proliferation of invulnerables and damage reduction means we end up jumping straight to the HH Railgun doing massive damage at ridiculous strength, ignoring invulns and adding MW too just for the hell of it.

With less variation you can easily make the railgun stand out through fairly simple and minor changes. Damage 2d3+4, for example, makes it much more consistent than other premier anti-tank but doesn't take it completely out of line compared to everything else. That also requires GW to have a consistent approach to profiles, abilities, saves and so on.

The idea that having weapons have the same statline makes the game boring is bizarre to me. It ignores the obvious fact that there are more differences between a Hormagaunt and a Hive Tyrant than just their weapons. WS, S, A, mobility, potential WL traits and Relics are all things that can mean a weapon profile of S User Ap-1 D1 works very differently depending on the model using it. I think we can tell from the Chaplain powerfist example that Daed long ago stopped arguing in good faith though.

I could be in the minority here, but I quite like the profiles on the new nid dex.

I don't think I will have problems remembering them after a couple of games, and they make it so all models have a very specific profile, which honestly didn't happen in the previous dex.

The powerfist comparison is also hardly applicable, because all powerfists have the same model.

Talons are differently represented on each model. They have different shapes and sizes. The ones on a HT are not the same ones on a Trygon or on a Maleceptor. The ones on a hormagaunt are not the ones on a ravener. Since the models are different, it stands to reason that the rules are different.

Spoletta wrote:
I could be in the minority here, but I quite like the profiles on the new nid dex.

I don't think I will have problems remembering them after a couple of games, and they make it so all models have a very specific profile, which honestly didn't happen in the previous dex.

The powerfist comparison is also hardly applicable, because all powerfists have the same model.

Talons are differently represented on each model. They have different shapes and sizes. The ones on a HT are not the same ones on a Trygon or on a Maleceptor. The ones on a hormagaunt are not the ones on a ravener. Since the models are different, it stands to reason that the rules are different.

Okay, so why isn't the difference in WS, strength and number of attacks not enough to represent that?

 Sim-Life wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
I could be in the minority here, but I quite like the profiles on the new nid dex.

I don't think I will have problems remembering them after a couple of games, and they make it so all models have a very specific profile, which honestly didn't happen in the previous dex.

The powerfist comparison is also hardly applicable, because all powerfists have the same model.

Talons are differently represented on each model. They have different shapes and sizes. The ones on a HT are not the same ones on a Trygon or on a Maleceptor. The ones on a hormagaunt are not the ones on a ravener. Since the models are different, it stands to reason that the rules are different.

Okay, so why isn't the difference in WS, strength and number of attacks not enough to represent that?

Because that will create easy "best in slot" units. People want breakpoints, a creature at S7 will take the backseat to one at S8 unless the pricing is so competitive that it doesn't matter, but then you still have a "best melee creature". Weapons having different damage etc and more attack modes gives creature more niches they can use than "hits exactly like that other unit but lower strength for more attacks".

Regards WS, people constantly want everything that's meant to do anything to do it on a 3+, there's a reason the carnifex hit's on 3's now, all the MC's hit on 3's come to think of it. There's a reason people dislike the Orks hitting on 5+ and consider it an archaic system, there's a reason tau players wanted increased BS on crisis suits etc. reliability over flavour.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
I could be in the minority here, but I quite like the profiles on the new nid dex.

I don't think I will have problems remembering them after a couple of games, and they make it so all models have a very specific profile, which honestly didn't happen in the previous dex.

The powerfist comparison is also hardly applicable, because all powerfists have the same model.

Talons are differently represented on each model. They have different shapes and sizes. The ones on a HT are not the same ones on a Trygon or on a Maleceptor. The ones on a hormagaunt are not the ones on a ravener. Since the models are different, it stands to reason that the rules are different.

Okay, so why isn't the difference in WS, strength and number of attacks not enough to represent that?

You could do that if the model had only that one single option.
Take a fex. If the melee capabilities of a fex were in his stats, then I could equip a fex with ranged weapons and still be a melee monstruosity.
No, the current profiles work much better.

Spoletta wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
I could be in the minority here, but I quite like the profiles on the new nid dex.

I don't think I will have problems remembering them after a couple of games, and they make it so all models have a very specific profile, which honestly didn't happen in the previous dex.

The powerfist comparison is also hardly applicable, because all powerfists have the same model.

Talons are differently represented on each model. They have different shapes and sizes. The ones on a HT are not the same ones on a Trygon or on a Maleceptor. The ones on a hormagaunt are not the ones on a ravener. Since the models are different, it stands to reason that the rules are different.

Okay, so why isn't the difference in WS, strength and number of attacks not enough to represent that?

You could do that if the model had only that one single option.
Take a fex. If the melee capabilities of a fex were in his stats, then I could equip a fex with ranged weapons and still be a melee monstruosity.
No, the current profiles work much better.

Is that bad? A Carnifex is basically a Dread equivalent and many factions have similar units that are good at both CC and shooting. Redemptor Dreads can carry some pretty potent shooting and punch really hard in close combat, for example.