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.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

Why did they implement Power Level? Easy question, easy answer:

Gamers have become too lazy/stupid to use a calculator in order to write a proper list. So not only the rules have been dumbed down but also the process of creating an army just to lure a larger demographic into the hobby.

Nah.
GW introduced Power Levels because they initially planned to remove balance entirely like in 1st ed. Age of Sigmar; but when that launched disastrously, they had to bodge a point system back in to 40k before 8th ed. launched.

That would have been suicide waiting to happen (fast). 8th edition was 2 years after the General's Handbook and the rules and stats are more complex and multifarious than those from AoS. I wouldn't rule out that they had plans to scrap point values, but with their real major system it's kinda unlikely for me. I guess they had the plan to make 40k more beginner friendly (they had tried something like that in the Battle for Macragge box with the rules) and to be fair it's not that bad for really new players to have some guide how to arrange their first games. Though it shouldn't take a long time after they see the flaws and change to point values.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
That now the sheep are content to pay for points updates in addition to codexes is just a happy by-product.

Well, it's free now. And while I never bought any of those Munitorum books I think calling people 'sheep' who did is just arrogant.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Remember that the Catachans are being saddled with a limit of 2 Flamers, 'cause the sprue has 1 flamer and you get 2 sprues in a box.

Thats not true at all. It's because Catachans are in a jungle and therefore would ONLY use flamers in such an environment. Saying otherwise just makes you a WAAC powergamer

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Thats not true at all. It's because Catachans are in a jungle and therefore would ONLY use flamers in such an environment. Saying otherwise just makes you a WAAC powergamer

But only two flamers, no more. If you want more then you're a WAAC powergamer.

I used to think that every upgrade and the
like had a fair points cost that just had to be found but in a game like 40k where many weapons just are slightly better or worse versions of each other that doesn't work. Take the heavy weapons for instance, especially the missile launcher and lascannon. They are fundamentally similar weapons (no one cares about frak missiles) only one of them is a bit deadlier. That means that in actual worth they're relatively close to eachother. But, if you have for instance a 5 point difference between them, everyone will consistently pick the lascannon because as a percentage of the squad price, it's negligible and it's a clearly superior weapon. If you however make the difference more pronounced you make the lascannon too expensive for what it is and no one takes it.

The best way to make weapons options and actual choice has nothing to do with points but should be about giving them all a clearly different role. Right now however most of them kind of have the same one and the choice just comes down to efficiency. And the grenade launcher always just is a weaker version of other options so it never gets taken at all.

And then there's granularity. How much is having frag grenades on an infantry squad worth for instance? It basically gives an extra shot to the squad at very short range. A single point already is too much for that.

 Dolnikan wrote:
I used to think that every upgrade and the
like had a fair points cost that just had to be found but in a game like 40k where many weapons just are slightly better or worse versions of each other that doesn't work. Take the heavy weapons for instance, especially the missile launcher and lascannon. They are fundamentally similar weapons (no one cares about frak missiles) only one of them is a bit deadlier. That means that in actual worth they're relatively close to eachother. But, if you have for instance a 5 point difference between them, everyone will consistently pick the lascannon because as a percentage of the squad price, it's negligible and it's a clearly superior weapon. If you however make the difference more pronounced you make the lascannon too expensive for what it is and no one takes it.

The problem here isn’t that the Krak Missile is a less powerful Lascannon. It’s that the Frag Missile isn’t worth the ink it is printed with. If the Frag Missile was reasonably good, the Missile Launcher would have a place as a useful weapon option.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Remember that the Catachans are being saddled with a limit of 2 Flamers, 'cause the sprue has 1 flamer and you get 2 sprues in a box.

Thats not true at all. It's because Catachans are in a jungle and therefore would ONLY use flamers in such an environment. Saying otherwise just makes you a WAAC powergamer

...right.

Why? It would make as much sense to JUST use flamers in a jungle as in a heavily built up urban terrain.

Which is to say, none.

Sorry if you're just being sarcastic and I'm not picking up on the nuance.

 alextroy wrote:

 Dolnikan wrote:
I used to think that every upgrade and the
like had a fair points cost that just had to be found but in a game like 40k where many weapons just are slightly better or worse versions of each other that doesn't work. Take the heavy weapons for instance, especially the missile launcher and lascannon. They are fundamentally similar weapons (no one cares about frak missiles) only one of them is a bit deadlier. That means that in actual worth they're relatively close to eachother. But, if you have for instance a 5 point difference between them, everyone will consistently pick the lascannon because as a percentage of the squad price, it's negligible and it's a clearly superior weapon. If you however make the difference more pronounced you make the lascannon too expensive for what it is and no one takes it.

The problem here isn’t that the Krak Missile is a less powerful Lascannon. It’s that the Frag Missile isn’t worth the ink it is printed with. If the Frag Missile was reasonably good, the Missile Launcher would have a place as a useful weapon option.

Ideally, yes. Because that would make them actually different weapons but the frak options of weapons haven't ever been really worth anything and they won't be as long as the game is all about elites and heavy infantry. If the missile launcher (and mortar, and heavy bolter, and autocannon) all had clearly different roles there would be an actual choice to make. But then they don't have to be distinguished by different points costs because they all have a clear niche. Right now though, most of them don't have one at all. They're just slightly different versions of each other. The only weapon with a truly different role is the mortar and that one just doesn't mesh well with infantry squads for obvious reasons.

Although this is heresy in 40k circles, I'm personally in favour of fusing some weapons in the rules. So instead of the usual bunch of similar weapons you get a few much more distinguished types like say an anti-tank heavy weapon where it doesn't matter if it's modelled as a missile launcher, lascannon, or autocannon. Of course, far goes against what is a core design philosophy of the game where every little bit has to have individual rules. 40k however has grown in scale and I think that that should be recognised by abstracting more.

 alextroy wrote:
The problem here isn’t that the Krak Missile is a less powerful Lascannon. It’s that the Frag Missile isn’t worth the ink it is printed with. If the Frag Missile was reasonably good, the Missile Launcher would have a place as a useful weapon option.

Or if the costs were appropriate. Missile launchers suck and are never taken because GW keeps pricing them at the same cost as a lascannon or, at best, very slightly cheaper*. If the price difference reflected their difference in power both would be viable choices. If both cost zero points as they do in the pseudo-PL system the lascannon is the obvious correct choice. If the missile launcher costs +5 points and the lascannon costs +50 points the missile launcher is the obvious correct choice. Somewhere in the middle is a set of costs where both options are reasonable choices. But instead of putting effort into making a quality game GW would rather flip the table and declare that all upgrades are free.

*It seems like the issue is GW gets emotional and way over-values blast and AoE weapons. The only see the amazing maximum damage you can do with perfect RNG against the perfect target and ignore the reality of what you can expect to get in a real game.

 Albertorius wrote:
Sorry if you're just being sarcastic and I'm not picking up on the nuance.

He was being facetious.

This is in general, basic point costs are for maximum potential damage

They also don't understand that 2D3 and 1D6 damage is not the same and should not cost the same points although the maximum is the same

Always has been that way, just not always as obvious

 Pyroalchi wrote:
@ Andykp: if this was in part directed towards me: As I said, I don't have a single squad equiped that way, but 4 with standard, medic, vox and all lasguns or laspistol + CC weapon.
I still think the 4 x the same special weapon had various fluff explanations, regardless of being really efficient powerwise. I personally (feel free to disagree) find a commander accompanied by an elite kill team with the best weapons the regiment can muster pretty fluffy and if you build such a team, 4 x sniper or 4 x melta or whatever looks much more sensible than mixing and matching in between.

Just because something was obviously the best option to do a specific thing (like spamming cheap plasma), it does not automatically mean that it is unfluffy

Wasn’t directed at anyone person. Certainly a thing can be powerful AND fluffy. But the reason people like command squads stuffed with optimal special weapons now is because of the power, not the fluff. It’d just be better if people were honest and said that. It’s still a valid opinion.

Andykp wrote:

 Pyroalchi wrote:
@ Andykp: if this was in part directed towards me: As I said, I don't have a single squad equiped that way, but 4 with standard, medic, vox and all lasguns or laspistol + CC weapon.
I still think the 4 x the same special weapon had various fluff explanations, regardless of being really efficient powerwise. I personally (feel free to disagree) find a commander accompanied by an elite kill team with the best weapons the regiment can muster pretty fluffy and if you build such a team, 4 x sniper or 4 x melta or whatever looks much more sensible than mixing and matching in between.

Just because something was obviously the best option to do a specific thing (like spamming cheap plasma), it does not automatically mean that it is unfluffy

Wasn’t directed at anyone person. Certainly a thing can be powerful AND fluffy. But the reason people like command squads stuffed with optimal special weapons now is because of the power, not the fluff. It’d just be better if people were honest and said that. It’s still a valid opinion.

I think trying to tell others what they do for fluff/Narative reasons gets a bit messy. Being efficient and smart itself is a narative point for some players. When GW force silly restrictions it can very easily hurt the narrative that is supposed to be so important for 40k.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Love people trying to use fluff to justify taking 4 special weapons in command squads

Being able to take or not being able to take 4 special weapons in a command squad isn't in question though. You can still take 4 special weapons in a command squad. You just can't take more than one of any one special weapon. That's the point of contention. Did you miss that?

No didn’t miss that at all, even said I don’t think it’s a good thing., but guess you missed that. I’m all for choice. You should be able to take any combo of special weapons, I DO NOT like only being able to take the weapons in the kit, even started a thread about it when they did it to skitarii, because it messed up my units and was annoying. Folk should just be honest about why they want to take the multiple plasma guns or whatever was all I was saying. The new rules don’t stop you making fluffy units, they stop you taking powerful combos you like. The new rules are stupid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Apple fox wrote:

Andykp wrote:

 Pyroalchi wrote:
@ Andykp: if this was in part directed towards me: As I said, I don't have a single squad equiped that way, but 4 with standard, medic, vox and all lasguns or laspistol + CC weapon.
I still think the 4 x the same special weapon had various fluff explanations, regardless of being really efficient powerwise. I personally (feel free to disagree) find a commander accompanied by an elite kill team with the best weapons the regiment can muster pretty fluffy and if you build such a team, 4 x sniper or 4 x melta or whatever looks much more sensible than mixing and matching in between.

Just because something was obviously the best option to do a specific thing (like spamming cheap plasma), it does not automatically mean that it is unfluffy

Wasn’t directed at anyone person. Certainly a thing can be powerful AND fluffy. But the reason people like command squads stuffed with optimal special weapons now is because of the power, not the fluff. It’d just be better if people were honest and said that. It’s still a valid opinion.

I think trying to tell others what they do for fluff/Narative reasons gets a bit messy. Being efficient and smart itself is a narative point for some players. When GW force silly restrictions it can very easily hurt the narrative that is supposed to be so important for 40k.

The new rules aren’t good for any part of the game, andpeople should be able to take what ever kit they want and use what ever fluff suits to create a narrative. But when you a selecting options because they are powerful and then creating fluff to justify that and those options are taken away, you are annoyed because they have taken away the powerful option not the fluff.

Keel wrote:
The D-99 list, yes, but in the "normal" Drop Troops list command squads could take just one special weapon.

I'm looking at it right now in the 2nd Ed IA3 list and it allows up to 4 special weapons for the 4 Veterans in the squad. AFAIK, this is the latest version of the army list, as it came well after IA8 (where Elysian Command Squads were indeed limited to 1 special weapon and the Ground Scanner thingy was a separate HQ entry).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:
I think that's supposedly the whole point: the free things are not meant to be optional to have, they are optional to not have. And since downgrades are kinda silly (Infantry Squad starts with Vox included, but then have the option to remove the Vox for, like, -5 points... that would be really weird) the second-best is to have these not!options for free.

Then they should be baked into the cost of the squad, and not something that's optional to take.

But then what if somebody doesn't want to take a Vox in their squad?

 AtoMaki wrote:

But then what if somebody doesn't want to take a Vox in their squad?

What if someone doesn't want to take lasguns and flak armour? It's just part of the basic gear now, and it makes sense that it is.

 Crimson wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:

But then what if somebody doesn't want to take a Vox in their squad?

What if someone doesn't want to take lasguns and flak armour? It's just part of the basic gear now, and it makes sense that it is.

That's a good point, but I don't think the Vox is ever implied to be basic gear in the fluff while the lasgun and the flak vest are.

Andykp wrote:
Wasn’t directed at anyone person. Certainly a thing can be powerful AND fluffy. But the reason people like command squads stuffed with optimal special weapons now is because of the power, not the fluff. It’d just be better if people were honest and said that. It’s still a valid opinion.

No, I think it absolutely can be about the fluff. 40k embraces the Asskicking Equals Authority trope. The biggest and strongest ork gets to be in charge, and if you want to take his place you fight him for it. The chapter master isn't sitting in orbit managing strategy for the forces under his command, he's grabbing a plasma pistol and power fist and challenging the enemy leader to a duel. In that context it absolutely makes sense that a guard officer's command squad would be four of the regiment's best marksmen armed with four copies of the most powerful gun a guardsman can carry, and that the unit's primary goal would be to find the biggest threat on the battlefield and erase it from existence.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Wasn’t directed at anyone person. Certainly a thing can be powerful AND fluffy. But the reason people like command squads stuffed with optimal special weapons now is because of the power, not the fluff. It’d just be better if people were honest and said that. It’s still a valid opinion.

No, I think it absolutely can be about the fluff. 40k embraces the Asskicking Equals Authority trope. The biggest and strongest ork gets to be in charge, and if you want to take his place you fight him for it. The chapter master isn't sitting in orbit managing strategy for the forces under his command, he's grabbing a plasma pistol and power fist and challenging the enemy leader to a duel. In that context it absolutely makes sense that a guard officer's command squad would be four of the regiment's best marksmen armed with four copies of the most powerful gun a guardsman can carry, and that the unit's primary goal would be to find the biggest threat on the battlefield and erase it from existence.

Guard commanders are generally not front line fighters, even in your scenario, the commander isn't finding and destroying the biggest threat, the command squad are, because they have the most point efficient guns. To parallel your fluff example would be the warboss sending meganobs to krump some bladeguard, which isn't quite so heroic suddenly.

Higher level commanders generally aren't front line fighters. This is as much true in real life as it is in the Guard. The ones in the Codex, that you bring to the front line, aren't of that level, so again, why wouldn't the people with them have good weapons?

 AtoMaki wrote:
That's a good point, but I don't think the Vox is ever implied to be basic gear in the fluff while the lasgun and the flak vest are.

And if it's not basic gear, then it's an upgrade, and if it's an upgrade, it should have a cost associated with that, because if it doesn't then it's not an upgrade and there's never a reason not to take things that are free.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Higher level commanders generally aren't front line fighters. This is as much true in real life as it is in the Guard. The ones in the Codex, that you bring to the front line, aren't of that level, so again, why wouldn't the people with them have good weapons?

 AtoMaki wrote:
That's a good point, but I don't think the Vox is ever implied to be basic gear in the fluff while the lasgun and the flak vest are.

And if it's not basic gear, then it's an upgrade, and if it's an upgrade, it should have a cost associated with that, because if it doesn't then it's not an upgrade and there's never a reason not to take things that are free.

Somebody might just not want it. For modeling (they don't like the Vox model) or fluff (Their Guys don't use Vox) reasons. That's fair.

Does background vs math hammer matter? Like….at all?

If someone packs a command squad with Plasma, the best you can do is refuse to play them - perhaps with a disapproving tutting to good measure.

But how much should GW be restricting player choice? To what extent should they be enforcing the background?

Because it’s not your or my job or place to tell anyone else how to play the game. Ever.

There is of course risk. If like myself you prefer Interesting Project type armies, either as a grand experiment (how well does a purely 2nd Ed Eldar army translate to the modern era), something crunchy in background or other “I’ll take what appeals for a variety of reasons” armies, the risk is we come up against a WAAC list and attitude in our opponent and might struggle to enjoy the game.

For WAAC (sorry to use extremes, but this is just a demonstration) player? The risk is everyone else thinks you’re a low talent goon dependant entirely on super powerful armies and boring/frustrating your opponent with curious rules interpretations and pointless “you couldn’t be more wrong than if you were Liz Truss” rules arguments? The risk is people are going to think poorly of you and ultimately refuse you a game.

Both are entirely valid approaches to the game and indeed hobby. So perhaps a period of winding necks in is required here? You not wanting to field a specific loadout, especially one previous allowed under the rules, is no reason at all for that option to be denied to the next player.

Dudeface wrote:
Guard commanders are generally not front line fighters, even in your scenario, the commander isn't finding and destroying the biggest threat, the command squad are, because they have the most point efficient guns. To parallel your fluff example would be the warboss sending meganobs to krump some bladeguard, which isn't quite so heroic suddenly.

They shouldn't be front-line fighters in a realistic universe. In 40k they are. They carry weapons that encourage them to get into combat and most of their relics/WLTs are about buffing their combat ability. And yeah, it's a bit weird that command squads can be independent from the officer but I'm fine with the new codex fixing that. An officer and four plasma gunners is a very fluffy unit that should not be banned just because 20 years ago the sprue designer only put one plasma gun in the box.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
If someone packs a command squad with Plasma, the best you can do is refuse to play them - perhaps with a disapproving tutting to good measure.

Why would you refuse to play someone for taking a perfectly legal and thematic unit? Is this some kind of CAAC thing?

 AtoMaki wrote:
Somebody might just not want it. For modeling (they don't like the Vox model) or fluff (Their Guys don't use Vox) reasons. That's fair.

Then they wouldn't take it. But it shouldn't be free.

 AtoMaki wrote:
Somebody might just not want it. For modeling (they don't like the Vox model) or fluff (Their Guys don't use Vox) reasons. That's fair.

Having trap options that, outside of people deliberately sabotaging their in-game performance for narrative reasons, only people who are unfamiliar with the rules will ever take is very poor design. If a vox is standard gear that you're expected to take then it should be built into the unit's rules and not be an option, if it's supposed to be a thing you can opt not to take then it should be an option with a point cost like every other option. And if you're the one in a million person who doesn't want to use it for Reasons even if it's free you can always decline to ever use the rule, just like a person who wants to pretend their guardsmen don't have lasguns can always opt not to shoot with them. But the game shouldn't be designed around that extreme edge case.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Guard commanders are generally not front line fighters, even in your scenario, the commander isn't finding and destroying the biggest threat, the command squad are, because they have the most point efficient guns. To parallel your fluff example would be the warboss sending meganobs to krump some bladeguard, which isn't quite so heroic suddenly.

They shouldn't be front-line fighters in a realistic universe. In 40k they are. They carry weapons that encourage them to get into combat and most of their relics/WLTs are about buffing their combat ability. And yeah, it's a bit weird that command squads can be independent from the officer but I'm fine with the new codex fixing that. An officer and four plasma gunners is a very fluffy unit that should not be banned just because 20 years ago the sprue designer only put one plasma gun in the box.

Real life example. Dick Winters (Band of Brothers fame) apparently never fired his rifle after being promoted to Major.

Why? He was too busy commanding. I'm sure he would have become more involved if the situation demanded it but the Company became his 'rifle'.

But in fantasy and sci-fi wargames, we want our commanders to be Heroic Heroes wading in blood and hearing the lamentations of the enemy's significant others. And more power to their elbows.

I'm not into a lot of historical wargames. How do ACW rulesets reflect General Lee? Close combat monster or providing strategy buffs to get the best out of the troops..

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Guard commanders are generally not front line fighters, even in your scenario, the commander isn't finding and destroying the biggest threat, the command squad are, because they have the most point efficient guns. To parallel your fluff example would be the warboss sending meganobs to krump some bladeguard, which isn't quite so heroic suddenly.

They shouldn't be front-line fighters in a realistic universe. In 40k they are. They carry weapons that encourage them to get into combat and most of their relics/WLTs are about buffing their combat ability. And yeah, it's a bit weird that command squads can be independent from the officer but I'm fine with the new codex fixing that. An officer and four plasma gunners is a very fluffy unit that should not be banned just because 20 years ago the sprue designer only put one plasma gun in the box.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
If someone packs a command squad with Plasma, the best you can do is refuse to play them - perhaps with a disapproving tutting to good measure.

Why would you refuse to play someone for taking a perfectly legal and thematic unit? Is this some kind of CAAC thing?

Not saying I would for that, just giving a demonstration.

When I do refuse games it’s usually far less to do with the player’s list, and more to do with the player’s personality. Whilst it’s been bloody ages since I last played a game, let alone was any good (so long I’m pretty much back to Clueless N00b), if someone is WAAC in attitude, I’m not going to enjoy that game much.

I mean, I deal with disputes professionally. That involves a lot of reading, a fair amount of research, and depending on the case, quite a lot of stress. I…..don’t want any of that in my game time. Because it’s meant to be something fun and relaxing.

Don’t get me wrong. If I get gubbed, I get gubbed and I take my losses with good grace. But when someone is nitpicking every single thing, refusing to show rules in their book whilst querying every single one of mine? Regardless of the outcome of that game, I’m not going to play them again, because I have neither the time nor inclination to deal with that behaviour when I’m not being paid to do so.

But I do again stress that is me expressing a preference in opponents. I am not saying anyone else should follow my lead, tastes and peccadilloes. Nobody is playing it wrong. Just sometimes you get a mismatch in opponents.

To flip it? Someone well experienced in the game who enjoys Tournaments is likely to find me a frustrating player, because I’m really not that up on the rules, and may even exhibit an entirely blank expression when they’re explaining an accurate and factual explanation of rule interactions that just caused half my army to get all horribly hacked mangled and squished to death. And whilst I would ask for a little leeway due to my inexperience, they’re not particularly obliged to provide that - especially if I somewhat inadvisably took part in a Tournament, where I think it’s entirely reasonable to expect your opponents to have a decent understanding of the game.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:
Somebody might just not want it. For modeling (they don't like the Vox model) or fluff (Their Guys don't use Vox) reasons. That's fair.

Then they wouldn't take it. But it shouldn't be free.

At that point, it might as well be free. Because:

Aecus Decimus wrote:But the game shouldn't be designed around that extreme edge case.

I would argue it is not an extreme edge case at all. "Modeling" and "fluff" players apparently outnumber "crunch" players by quite a margin, so for all I know people who say that the Vox is compulsory if free might be the extreme edge case while the vast majority doesn't give a flying frick about the extreme cost/benefit ratio, they just want to play with what they like.

Or at least I think this is GW's line of thinking.

 AtoMaki wrote:
I would argue it is not an extreme edge case at all. "Modeling" and "fluff" players apparently outnumber "crunch" players by quite a margin, so for all I know people who say that the Vox is compulsory if free might be the extreme edge case while the vast majority doesn't give a flying frick about the extreme cost/benefit ratio, they just want to play with what they like.

Or at least I think this is GW's line of thinking.

I seriously doubt you'll find more than a tiny minority who, if a vox is a free rule included in the unit's base profile, will refuse to use it because they don't think it's fluffy for their unit to have one.

And this isn't just theory. Since GW started with the pseudo-PL idiocy I've seen lots of people post lists that were missing the free upgrades. It's almost always newer players who didn't understand that yes, they could take a bunch of free stuff and there was no reason not to and/or people who were coming back from a break and hadn't kept up with the dataslate changes. And once someone explained the situation to them almost inevitably the response was something like "thanks for explaining that, I'll add all that stuff to my list". The only time I can remember ever seeing someone reject the free upgrades was when their reason was not wanting to invest in WYSIWYG models for something they didn't expect to survive once guard got a real codex. But apparently now GW has decided to make free stuff permanent and take away that reason!

 alphaecho wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Guard commanders are generally not front line fighters, even in your scenario, the commander isn't finding and destroying the biggest threat, the command squad are, because they have the most point efficient guns. To parallel your fluff example would be the warboss sending meganobs to krump some bladeguard, which isn't quite so heroic suddenly.

They shouldn't be front-line fighters in a realistic universe. In 40k they are. They carry weapons that encourage them to get into combat and most of their relics/WLTs are about buffing their combat ability. And yeah, it's a bit weird that command squads can be independent from the officer but I'm fine with the new codex fixing that. An officer and four plasma gunners is a very fluffy unit that should not be banned just because 20 years ago the sprue designer only put one plasma gun in the box.

Real life example. Dick Winters (Band of Brothers fame) apparently never fired his rifle after being promoted to Major.

Why? He was too busy commanding. I'm sure he would have become more involved if the situation demanded it but the Company became his 'rifle'.

But in fantasy and sci-fi wargames, we want our commanders to be Heroic Heroes wading in blood and hearing the lamentations of the enemy's significant others. And more power to their elbows.

I'm not into a lot of historical wargames. How do ACW rulesets reflect General Lee? Close combat monster or providing strategy buffs to get the best out of the troops..

This is ultimately a subjective issue, to me either you're the front line guy charging and you have your vet buddies who are there to watch your back, or you're the strategist at the back pulling strings and need the aides to manage things with you. For me, neither of those is 4 guys with plasma guns. If that's your fluff then fair play, you do you, but there will be a chunk of people who just wanted an efficient weapon squad, which that's OK too but just accept that reason.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:
I would argue it is not an extreme edge case at all. "Modeling" and "fluff" players apparently outnumber "crunch" players by quite a margin, so for all I know people who say that the Vox is compulsory if free might be the extreme edge case while the vast majority doesn't give a flying frick about the extreme cost/benefit ratio, they just want to play with what they like.

Or at least I think this is GW's line of thinking.

I seriously doubt you'll find more than a tiny minority who, if a vox is a free rule included in the unit's base profile, will refuse to use it because they don't think it's fluffy for their unit to have one.

I wouldn't bet on this, personally. Especially if anecdotal circumstances apply because my experience is the complete opposite of yours.