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.

High strength alone doesn't really equate to good melee.
Requiring melee weapons to have AP and damage would absolutely make melee weapons far more effective than none.

I like the suggestion earlier to make scythes double attacks, S+1, and say AP1.
There should be small medium and large.
Small AP1 D1, medium AP2 D2, large AP3 D3.

Slipspace wrote:

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.

We can argue about this, sure, but the point stands.

It wouldn't be the same.

Ok so if we do (theoretical stats, i don't know gak about the statblocks of nids)

Gaunt (Scything talon)
3A, 5+, S3, -1, 1

Fex (Scything talon)
6A, 4+, S7, -1, 1

Hive Tyrant (Scything talon)
10A, 3+, S7, -1, 1


How are all these "the same" with "an obvious better pick" You get 1 statline for your talons (USER, -1, 1) and you get various units with different effectiveness with them. Then you get rid of all the alphabits word salad that is the list of talons that was highlighted earlier. Clean, memorizable, simple.

And no, if your fex has 6A, S7, 0, 1 attacks base even if you load him with guns, it doesnt make it a "melee monster"

Neither does S7 -1.

If the difference between the melee and non melee version is just a +1S and -1 AP, the system you are proposing is highly flawed.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Ok so if we do (theoretical stats, i don't know gak about the statblocks of nids)

Gaunt (Scything talon)
3A, 5+, S3, -1, 1

Fex (Scything talon)
6A, 4+, S7, -1, 1

Hive Tyrant (Scything talon)
10A, 3+, S7, -1, 1


How are all these "the same" with "an obvious better pick" You get 1 statline for your talons (USER, -1, 1) and you get various units with different effectiveness with them. Then you get rid of all the alphabits word salad that is the list of talons that was highlighted earlier. Clean, memorizable, simple.

And no, if your fex has 6A, S7, 0, 1 attacks base even if you load him with guns, it doesnt make it a "melee monster"

Easy, you don't take the hormagaunts because they're accomplishing jack all hitting on a 5+ (assuming that's what it means) when you have the fleshborers available on gants.

You don't bother taking talons on the tyrant because with 10A base the other melee options would win out by default and the carnifex you'd swap for guns since S7 isn't a great breakpoint and at ap-1 d1 you might as well not have a melee weapon.

Okay, so you're falling back on pedantry over someone's off the cuff example and ignoring battlefield roles in favor of pure damage.

In the past Scything Talons also granted extra attacks and Crushing Claws were power fists and rending talons gave rending. They all had their own uses and we didn't need to have a dozen varients of each and the game was still fun. Why is that suddenly different?

Spoletta wrote:
Neither does S7 -1.

If the difference between the melee and non melee version is just a +1S and -1 AP, the system you are proposing is highly flawed.

Number of attacks would change too, forgot to add the talons extra attacks to the number they each get so 5 for gaunts, 10 for fex, 14 for hive tyrant.

what if the purpose ISNT to make it a melee monster. Lets say giving any other weapon to the tyrant costs 100pts, then taking the talons gives you AP1 and keeps your tyrant cheap.

I'd say that if carrying different weapons is the only thing that differentiates two units, such that there is always a clear winner and a clear loser between two units that carry the same weapons, you have a massive problem with game depth (specifically, lack thereof).

But in any case, I don't actually think 40K is there. Raveners and Warriors both carry Deathspitters and are going to play completely differently on the tabletop. Same gun, different purpose. You don't need Primaris-esque bespoke gun variants for every single unit just to give them different roles.

In 8th Ed, both Termagants and Warriors could carry the same Devourer. That's two very different sizes of creature with the same weapon. For Termagants, you spent points on a Devourer to make them a credible shooting threat en-masse. It was essentially a heavy weapon. For Warriors, it was the cheaper alternative to a Deathspitter. It was how you gave them some shooting while keeping them inexpensive. Same weapon, two very different platforms, two very different roles.

If someone is seriously going to argue that Hive Tyrants and Carnifexes using the same Scything Talon profile would mean you'd only ever see one or the other on the tabletop, they either haven't read the rules or they're being extremely disingenuous.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Okay, so you're falling back on pedantry over someone's off the cuff example and ignoring battlefield roles in favor of pure damage.

In the past Scything Talons also granted extra attacks and Crushing Claws were power fists and rending talons gave rending. They all had their own uses and we didn't need to have a dozen varients of each and the game was still fun. Why is that suddenly different?

Why does having homogeneous weapon entries across an army make an army more fun? The entire debate is pedantry, the unit is what it is, read the entry in the book, learn it over a few uses and job done.

Dudeface wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Okay, so you're falling back on pedantry over someone's off the cuff example and ignoring battlefield roles in favor of pure damage.

In the past Scything Talons also granted extra attacks and Crushing Claws were power fists and rending talons gave rending. They all had their own uses and we didn't need to have a dozen varients of each and the game was still fun. Why is that suddenly different?

Why does having homogeneous weapon entries across an army make an army more fun? The entire debate is pedantry, the unit is what it is, read the entry in the book, learn it over a few uses and job done.

Quick! Without looking at the book, tell me what the difference is between

Executor bolt rifle
executor heavy bolt rifle
heavy bolt rifle
Heavy bolter
hellstorm bolt rifle
hellstorm heavy bolter

Now repeat that for all the units in your codex.

40k Games already take way too long, adding the "oh lemme check, i'm not sure on what stat the +1 is for that gun" slows it down even more.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Okay, so you're falling back on pedantry over someone's off the cuff example and ignoring battlefield roles in favor of pure damage.

In the past Scything Talons also granted extra attacks and Crushing Claws were power fists and rending talons gave rending. They all had their own uses and we didn't need to have a dozen varients of each and the game was still fun. Why is that suddenly different?

Why does having homogeneous weapon entries across an army make an army more fun? The entire debate is pedantry, the unit is what it is, read the entry in the book, learn it over a few uses and job done.

Quick! Without looking at the book, tell me what the difference is between

Executor bolt rifle
executor heavy bolt rifle
heavy bolt rifle
Heavy bolter
hellstorm bolt rifle
hellstorm heavy bolter

Now repeat that for all the units in your codex.

40k Games already take way too long, adding the "oh lemme check, i'm not sure on what stat the +1 is for that gun" slows it down even more.

I don't have the marine book so here goes:

Executor bolt rifle - heavy 1 42" S5 Ap-2 D2
executor heavy bolt rifle - Heavy 42" 1 40" S6 Ap-3 D3
heavy bolt rifle - Rapid fire 36" S5 AP-1 D1
Heavy bolter - Heavy 3 36" S5 AP-1 D2
hellstorm bolt rifle - Assault 3 24" S5 AP- D1
hellstorm heavy bolter - Heavy 4 24" S5 AP- D2

How did I do?

Edited because I realised 40" isn't a multiple of 6, so changed the ranges to 42"

Dudeface wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Okay, so you're falling back on pedantry over someone's off the cuff example and ignoring battlefield roles in favor of pure damage.

In the past Scything Talons also granted extra attacks and Crushing Claws were power fists and rending talons gave rending. They all had their own uses and we didn't need to have a dozen varients of each and the game was still fun. Why is that suddenly different?

Why does having homogeneous weapon entries across an army make an army more fun? The entire debate is pedantry, the unit is what it is, read the entry in the book, learn it over a few uses and job done.

I already told you. Less time flipping through the codex, more time in the game.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Okay, so you're falling back on pedantry over someone's off the cuff example and ignoring battlefield roles in favor of pure damage.

In the past Scything Talons also granted extra attacks and Crushing Claws were power fists and rending talons gave rending. They all had their own uses and we didn't need to have a dozen varients of each and the game was still fun. Why is that suddenly different?

Why does having homogeneous weapon entries across an army make an army more fun? The entire debate is pedantry, the unit is what it is, read the entry in the book, learn it over a few uses and job done.

I already told you. Less time flipping through the codex, more time in the game.

So if it's a new book do you not need to look at the codex to see the stats of the model anyway? You know the same page with the weapons on?

Dudeface wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Okay, so you're falling back on pedantry over someone's off the cuff example and ignoring battlefield roles in favor of pure damage.

In the past Scything Talons also granted extra attacks and Crushing Claws were power fists and rending talons gave rending. They all had their own uses and we didn't need to have a dozen varients of each and the game was still fun. Why is that suddenly different?

Why does having homogeneous weapon entries across an army make an army more fun? The entire debate is pedantry, the unit is what it is, read the entry in the book, learn it over a few uses and job done.

I already told you. Less time flipping through the codex, more time in the game.

So if it's a new book do you not need to look at the codex to see the stats of the model anyway? You know the same page with the weapons on?

It's not about whether it's new or not. I'm still doing it over a year after some of my armies were released, as are my opponents. The sheer number of weapons that are almost the same but pointlessly different is mind-boggling. Quite often unit stats are fixed across unit types. SM, for example, have a basic Firstborn, Primaris and Gravis statline that doesn't vary much, especially for the Primaris and Gravis models, but the ludicrous number of bolt weapons means I constantly have to check to make sure I'm not cheating my opponent.

Having to explain why having less stuff to remember makes a game easier to play is peak DakkaDakka.

Sometimes I think if War For North Africa had chainswords, there'd be a vocal fanbase insisting that requiring Italian troops to expend more water tokens on upkeep is essential to distinguishing the nations of WW2.

 catbarf wrote:
Having to explain why having less stuff to remember makes a game easier to play is peak DakkaDakka.

Sometimes I think if War For North Africa had chainswords, there'd be a vocal fanbase insisting that requiring Italian troops to expend more water tokens on upkeep is essential to distinguishing the nations of WW2.

I know right and some people want more new units invented for every army then wish for extra spicy chapter traits, warlord traits, strats and army rules then some complain there's too many weapons.

 catbarf wrote:
Having to explain why having less stuff to remember makes a game easier to play is peak DakkaDakka.

Sometimes I think if War For North Africa had chainswords, there'd be a vocal fanbase insisting that requiring Italian troops to expend more water tokens on upkeep is essential to distinguishing the nations of WW2.

40k will never be thematic as long as Tallarn vehicles don't have rules for their differently shaped oil cans.

Dudeface wrote:



I don't have the marine book so here goes:

Executor bolt rifle - heavy 1 42" S5 Ap-2 D2
executor heavy bolt rifle - Heavy 42" 1 40" S6 Ap-3 D3
heavy bolt rifle - Rapid fire 36" S5 AP-1 D1
Heavy bolter - Heavy 3 36" S5 AP-1 D2
hellstorm bolt rifle - Assault 3 24" S5 AP- D1
hellstorm heavy bolter - Heavy 4 24" S5 AP- D2

How did I do?

Edited because I realised 40" isn't a multiple of 6, so changed the ranges to 42"

you got those wrong :

Executor heavy bolt rifle : 42" Heavy 2 5 -2 3
Hellstorm bolt rifle : 30" Assault 3 5 0 1
Hellstorm heavy bolter : 30" heavy 4 5 0 2

so 50%

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Dudeface wrote:



I don't have the marine book so here goes:

Executor bolt rifle - heavy 1 42" S5 Ap-2 D2
executor heavy bolt rifle - Heavy 42" 1 40" S6 Ap-3 D3
heavy bolt rifle - Rapid fire 36" S5 AP-1 D1
Heavy bolter - Heavy 3 36" S5 AP-1 D2
hellstorm bolt rifle - Assault 3 24" S5 AP- D1
hellstorm heavy bolter - Heavy 4 24" S5 AP- D2

How did I do?

Edited because I realised 40" isn't a multiple of 6, so changed the ranges to 42"

you got those wrong :

Executor heavy bolt rifle : 42" Heavy 2 5 -2 3
Hellstorm bolt rifle : 30" Assault 3 5 0 1
Hellstorm heavy bolter : 30" heavy 4 5 0 2

so 50%

Not bad since I've never played against them, owned them nor have the codex, can't be that hard then can it?

Dudeface wrote:


Not bad since I've never played against them, owned them nor have the codex, can't be that hard then can it?

you got half of them wrong.....
theres usually 6-7 different datasheet in a list.....
Its not impossible to remember them all, its just taxing for marginal reasons......
One of the 3 you got right is the heavy bolter, wanna know why? Because its STANDARDIZED across factions.

Is the difference between the STATS of a power maul/sword/axe really important? Do we NEED these distinctions?

It also doesn't particularly matter how well you do.
Some people sre extremely good at memorising numbers and values. Other people are less good.

It might not be that hard to memorise all this minutia for you, but for other's it isn't so easy.
I know I can't speak fo so other's, but I can speak for myself. I've never yet played a game of 40k where both myself and my opponent haven't gone scrambling for our codex several times to check up whether this unit got an extra AP or that unit got an extra strength.
When I was playing 7th I remember not even bringing my codex because I knew the entire thing by heart.
Now I bring an A4 sheet I made with all my unit stats, weapon stats, abilities, and strategems on it (written in short form) to remind me.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


Not bad since I've never played against them, owned them nor have the codex, can't be that hard then can it?

you got half of them wrong.....
theres usually 6-7 different datasheet in a list.....
Its not impossible to remember them all, its just taxing for marginal reasons......
One of the 3 you got right is the heavy bolter, wanna know why? Because its STANDARDIZED across factions.

Is the difference between the STATS of a power maul/sword/axe really important? Do we NEED these distinctions?

*me playing a game
"Ok I am shooting you with the Heavy Intercessors"
* rolls hits
"You're T5, right? Ok wounds on 4s because I'm S5"
*rolls wounds
"That's 10 wounds - regular saves. Right, no modifier. Alright now I'll do the special bolter that is D2."


"How many wounds? How are those AP2? Right ok AP1 plus Montka. Dirty."

That concession didn't last long...

 Daedalus81 wrote:

*me playing a game
"Ok I am shooting you with the Heavy Intercessors"
* rolls hits
"You're T5, right? Ok wounds on 4s because I'm S5"
*rolls wounds
"That's 10 wounds - regular saves. Right, no modifier. Alright now I'll do the special bolter that is D2."


"How many wounds? How are those AP2? Right ok AP1 plus Montka. Dirty."

I genuinely cannot tell what you're trying to say

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
That concession didn't last long...

I'm talking about something different.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
*me playing a game
"Ok I am shooting you with the Heavy Intercessors"
* rolls hits
"You're T5, right? Ok wounds on 4s because I'm S5"
*rolls wounds
"That's 10 wounds - regular saves. Right, no modifier. Alright now I'll do the special bolter that is D2."


"How many wounds? How are those AP2? Right ok AP1 plus Montka. Dirty."

Not sure if its because I went on a binge of youtube 40k battle reports where they tend to do this for the audience's sake, but I've picked up a tendency (possibly annoying tbh) of doing this through a game. I find it useful to me and my opponent to explain what I'm doing and why.

But then I also don't really mind checking the book unless you disappear for 5 minutes.

Tyel wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
*me playing a game
"Ok I am shooting you with the Heavy Intercessors"
* rolls hits
"You're T5, right? Ok wounds on 4s because I'm S5"
*rolls wounds
"That's 10 wounds - regular saves. Right, no modifier. Alright now I'll do the special bolter that is D2."


"How many wounds? How are those AP2? Right ok AP1 plus Montka. Dirty."

Not sure if its because I went on a binge of youtube 40k battle reports where they tend to do this for the audience's sake, but I've picked up a tendency (possibly annoying tbh) of doing this through a game. I find it useful to me and my opponent to explain what I'm doing and why.

But then I also don't really mind checking the book unless you disappear for 5 minutes.

All my games are pretty verbose, which might be why I don't perceive games as having big gaps when it isn't my turn.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
It also doesn't particularly matter how well you do.
Some people sre extremely good at memorising numbers and values. Other people are less good.

It might not be that hard to memorise all this minutia for you, but for other's it isn't so easy.
I know I can't speak fo so other's, but I can speak for myself. I've never yet played a game of 40k where both myself and my opponent haven't gone scrambling for our codex several times to check up whether this unit got an extra AP or that unit got an extra strength.
When I was playing 7th I remember not even bringing my codex because I knew the entire thing by heart.
Now I bring an A4 sheet I made with all my unit stats, weapon stats, abilities, and strategems on it (written in short form) to remind me.

My wife lost interest in 40K entirely on account of how much you need to remember. Unit stats are bad enough but at least you can reference those as needed; having to remember all her stratagems and when they're relevant is another matter entirely.

The people who really do struggle to keep up with the avalanche of raw numerical and syntactical data that 40K dumps on them aren't posting to DakkaDakka and they probably aren't playing 40K at all.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Ok so if we do (theoretical stats, i don't know gak about the statblocks of nids)

Gaunt (Scything talon)
3A, 5+, S3, -1, 1

Fex (Scything talon)
6A, 4+, S7, -1, 1

Hive Tyrant (Scything talon)
10A, 3+, S7, -1, 1

Don't the A from the scything talons stack? Because nothing in the codex doesn't say they don't and each time GW decided that a pair of +1A weapons don't give +2 it had to be errated, so a fex running around with maxed out talons should have more attacks then just 6.

Dudeface wrote:
I know right and some people want more new units invented for every army then wish for extra spicy chapter traits, warlord traits, strats and army rules then some complain there's too many weapons.

Bit of apples and oranges there.

Rules that you can read at home, build your list from, and then ignore all the irrelevant stuff is generally pretty easy on cognitive load. You can read through three dozen chapter traits, WLTs, and relics, pick the ones you want, and then make note of those specific ones or make reference cards for yourself.

But every weapon that is going to be present in your army needs to be tracked. Every stratagem you have access to has to be remembered. When that's a significant number of either, you start running into memorization problems.

Case in point, one of the suggestions for stratagems that I've heard is to have you pick (X) number before the start of the game and those are the only ones you can use. That's not actually reducing the complexity of the game space- all those stratagems are still in the game and still available. But it cuts down the number you have to remember from all of them to just X.

Similarly, while the new Tyranid hive fleet trait system has its own in-built complexity with static and adaptive traits and different lists, all it really comes down to at game time is 'my army's traits are X and Y', whereas you need a flowchart to keep track of Custodes.

Now, in general, I tend to prefer a design space that uses fewer but more impactful effects to distinguish factions and am not really a fan of the current plethora of options (particularly as many are redundant, repeated across factions, or downright useless and amount to false choice). But complexity that can be left behind at the listbuilding stage is preferable to complexity that is carried forward into gameplay.