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.
2022/12/30 07:42:31
Subject: 10th, will GW just bite the bullet and eliminate wargear costs? Should they?
I think it is a combination. Even if they just reduced the amount of special rules I think they have wargear overload and there is no way they will be able to balance it with the current release schedule and design team. So I would be content if GW settled for at least one load out to be internally balanced for each unit. (and might as well consolidate the weapon profiles at the same time) When they can manage that then they can try balancing different load outs for the same unit.(and split the profiles up again if they can manage)
I think this is a good example of "Perfect is the enemy of good enough". Rather than try to fix one thing they try to fix everything at once and thus will never succeed. Strive for good enough and then improve it and if you can or can not reach perfection it is of less importance as long as it is good enough.
2022/12/30 08:09:48
Subject: Re:10th, will GW just bite the bullet and eliminate wargear costs? Should they?
60% of options having no use case because of a refusal to add costs to wargear isn't good, it is awful. The only way to do worse would be for the inferior option to cost more than the superior option (0 pt plasma 0 pt grenade launcher terrible, 5 pt plasma 10 pt grenade launcher unfathomably bad). You are the one pretending that if wargear options aren't perfectly balanced then there is no reason for any of them to have different pts costs (perfect is 5 pt plasma 0 pt grenade launcher or something like that but 8 pt plasma 3 pt grenade launcher is still good). It's not that hard to figure out that lasguns and grenade launchers should cost less than plasma guns or that bolt pistols and plasma pistols should cost more than las pistols.
GW has the money to hire an Indian off Fiverr to figure out what options are roughly worth. Then they decide on a value and ask their testers what adjustments need to be made without changing stats any more. Every year they review based on community opinion and competitive performance and update pts within the parameters of the math they did at the start.
2022/12/30 09:28:55
Subject: 10th, will GW just bite the bullet and eliminate wargear costs? Should they?
Haighus wrote: Part of the problem is that GW is not great at applying negative consequences to upgrades to make them not automatically better, and is getting actively worse at it. Indeed, it seems they are going out of their way to allow players to ignore core rules that apply negatives to models. A good example is the increased utility of basically every weapon type over the editions- rapid fire gained the ability to move and shoot at full range. It then gained the ability to shoot and assault in the same turn. Pistols gained the ability to shoot in melee. Assault weapons gained the ability to shoot after advancing. Heavy weapons lost the restriction of being unable to shoot after moving- this last one was a big balance consideration in the past, an upgrade might be powerful, but you would sacrifice mobility for it
This is the part you have problems with?
No, pistols being able to do a clunky, inconvenient shot in melee (because they lost +1A) or heavies doing snap shots after move is peanuts next to broken gak stat inflation in xeno and chaos armies removing all the balance elements from the game. Tau used to max at 4+ skill, if you wanted more you needed markerlights and characters. Now? 2+ handed out like candy. Orkstodes and demons used to be T3, now it's T5 in half the entries because frak you. Eldar wraith units had very high stats in return for babysitter getting them to do what you wanted - no more, Eldar players whined so that was binned. Cheap chaos demon auxilias used to have 4+ skill to make 3+ of CSM stand out - nope, all 3+ now, hell, 2+ in some cases. Helbrutes and demon weapons were poweful but disobedient on roll of 1 - screw that, chaos must be predictable so that's gone too. Etc, etc, there were hundreds of characterful downsides in the game to balance upsides but not only it's in the past, the upsides that were once so good they needed a check are now being buffed into the stratosphere even though downside is gone
Meanwhile Imperial armies mostly kept the statlines and weapons, no matter how stupid they were - why SM veteran of centuries of warfare, clad in small tank, namely terminator plate, is still S4 T4 when any ork runt in t-shirt or small demon in loincloth now sports better stats? Why gravis statline is a joke next to ton of entries that shouldn't be even close to it? Why SM kept 3+/3+ when say Tau kid fresh out of academy (or DE teens with mom-funded gear on first raid) gets 2+/2+ just for existing? Why bolters are S4 AP- when junk colts bashed from scrap by GSC mooks are not only better than this, but are also better than most legendary, relic bolt pistols millennia old costing relic slots? Because frak you, that's why
No, this is an illustrative example of the overall problem that is easy to see in the core rules, and highlights an issue with the general trend of GW's game design towards less restrictions. The Eldar wraithguard example is very similar, but specific to a single faction and less generalisable.
The stat stuff is irrelevant- units with better stats have always existed and are entirely possible to balance appropriately with the correct costs (not just points). Costs which GW are increasingly removing.
ChargerIIC wrote: If algae farm paste with a little bit of your grandfather in it isn't Grimdark I don't know what is.
2022/12/30 10:07:49
Subject: 10th, will GW just bite the bullet and eliminate wargear costs? Should they?
Frankly the increased availabilty in slots is also the removal of a cost.
I can't wait for the GSC horde lists with bonus CP to roll over some unsuspecting list with the new ark of omens detachment. Afterall 12 troop slots mean 6 suicide squads and 6 neophyte squads for the tax of one HQ instead of 2 and some cp.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
2022/12/30 10:09:56
Subject: 10th, will GW just bite the bullet and eliminate wargear costs? Should they?
Not Online!!! wrote: Frankly the increased availabilty in slots is also the removal of a cost.
I can't wait for the GSC horde lists with bonus CP to roll over some unsuspecting list with the new ark of omens detachment. Afterall 12 troop slots mean 6 suicide squads and 6 neophyte squads for the tax of one HQ instead of 2 and some cp.
Yes, the expansion of FOCs has also reduced balance by reducing scarcity.
ChargerIIC wrote: If algae farm paste with a little bit of your grandfather in it isn't Grimdark I don't know what is.
2022/12/30 10:17:52
Subject: 10th, will GW just bite the bullet and eliminate wargear costs? Should they?
Not Online!!! wrote: Frankly the increased availabilty in slots is also the removal of a cost.
I can't wait for the GSC horde lists with bonus CP to roll over some unsuspecting list with the new ark of omens detachment. Afterall 12 troop slots mean 6 suicide squads and 6 neophyte squads for the tax of one HQ instead of 2 and some cp.
Yes, the expansion of FOCs has also reduced balance by reducing scarcity.
Tbf that was in the past already a problem, f.e. Nurgle CSM lords allowing PM's when they were actually good to be taken as troops, making CSM's even more redundant in a whole edition than they in general already were. (4th)... or certain formations...
but more on my exemple above, it actually is doubly problematic because CPs which supposedly were a hard to come by ressource then an easy and now once again a hard to come by one also got less scarce. It's doubly stupid so to speak. And i wonder how armies will be able to deal with 12 powertool weapons in their face AND the 12 mining weapons in the back ontop of that if they themselves have not cheap chaff to screen...
Edit: incidentally when slots were scarcer and unit types more pronounced (e.g. actual armor) then that placed opportunity cost on units like raptors or havocs because you'd forgo an Armor value unit instead...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/12/30 10:23:40
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
2022/12/30 10:26:45
Subject: 10th, will GW just bite the bullet and eliminate wargear costs? Should they?
Wraithguard being bad while away from a Psyker isn't going to balance them, the only way to achieve balance is with an appropriate pts cost. You can have units with downsides that are bad, fair or strong and units without downsides that are bad, fair or strong.
Not Online!!! wrote: Frankly the increased availabilty in slots is also the removal of a cost.
I can't wait for the GSC horde lists with bonus CP to roll over some unsuspecting list with the new ark of omens detachment. Afterall 12 troop slots mean 6 suicide squads and 6 neophyte squads for the tax of one HQ instead of 2 and some cp.
Yes, the expansion of FOCs has also reduced balance by reducing scarcity.
If people only take Tactical Squads because of a Detachment tax and never any more than the tax requires then is there really internal balance? If SM paying their Tactical Squad tax to play causes SM to have a 40% win rate against armies with balanced or undercosted Troops choices is the external balance any better than in a world where Space Marines just skip the overcosted Troops and take their more appropriately costed Vindicators and get a 45% win rate? Balance is achieved through pts, everything else is fluff. You lose and gain weight through nutrition, exercise is for performance and aesthetics.
2022/12/30 10:33:52
Subject: Re:10th, will GW just bite the bullet and eliminate wargear costs? Should they?
tauist wrote: Eliminate wargear costs? Sure, why not. If it gets the game closer to playing with PL, I'm good
Why would you want a different system to be closer to Power Level? Just use Power Level!
It'd be like me saying "Anything to make Tau more like Necrons, I'm good." Why wouldn't I just play Necrons if I love them so much. You have PL. Play PL. Why advocate for points to also be PL. What would be the point?
No, your analogue is flawed. I want PL to reign supreme over points because GW doesn't do consistent, which means PL and points will never get equal amount of attention, especially when an edition has been dragged out over halfway of its lifespan. Points had their chance in all other editions of the game, lets try PL only for one edition just to shake things up
tauist wrote: ... I don't care too much if 40K is "perfectly balanced"...
Oh Christ not this claptrap again. Who precisely is calling for a "perfectly balanced" game in this thread?
You know what? I don't take this stuff half as serious as some of you guys. Maybe I shouldn't post my opinions on these threads at all. But youknow this is still a public forum, so I'm allowed my 2 markka's just as anyone. Isn't ever increasing balance the holy grail most of yall seek for this game? perfect statistical winrates for all factions? *yawn* That's what it always feels like to me anyway..
Tell you what, I'll denote my "snipe comments" better in the future so no one needs to bother replying. I'm not really looking to debate my hot takes. Jolly good? Carry on.
"The larger point though, is that as players, we have more control over what the game looks and feels like than most of us are willing to use in order to solve our own problems"
2022/12/30 10:34:23
Subject: 10th, will GW just bite the bullet and eliminate wargear costs? Should they?
vict0988 wrote: 60% of options having no use case because of a refusal to add costs to wargear isn't good, it is awful.
Then fix the wargear items or remove them.
The example in here of guard officer chainsword vs power sword is a good one. Either have a "guard Sargent melee weapon" which is a blended profile or leave the power sword as is and give them a guard chainsword that gives enough of a boost to give it an equivalent use case.
2022/12/30 10:34:34
Subject: 10th, will GW just bite the bullet and eliminate wargear costs? Should they?
vict0988 wrote: Wraithguard being bad while away from a Psyker isn't going to balance them, the only way to achieve balance is with an appropriate pts cost. You can have units with downsides that are bad, fair or strong and units without downsides that are bad, fair or strong.
Not Online!!! wrote: Frankly the increased availabilty in slots is also the removal of a cost.
I can't wait for the GSC horde lists with bonus CP to roll over some unsuspecting list with the new ark of omens detachment. Afterall 12 troop slots mean 6 suicide squads and 6 neophyte squads for the tax of one HQ instead of 2 and some cp.
Yes, the expansion of FOCs has also reduced balance by reducing scarcity.
If people only take Tactical Squads because of a Detachment tax and never any more than the tax requires then is there really internal balance? If SM paying their Tactical Squad tax to play causes SM to have a 40% win rate against armies with balanced or undercosted Troops choices is the external balance any better than in a world where Space Marines just skip the overcosted Troops and take their more appropriately costed Vindicators and get a 45% win rate? Balance is achieved through pts, everything else is fluff. You lose and gain weight through nutrition, exercise is for performance and aesthetics.
i disagree, insofar that is a shortsighted view for multiple reasons.
For one not requiring x of a unit type is a clear hallmark that lists can skew and by extention turns the game into an overcomplex game of rock paper scissors because it is an easy way to tap into diffrent types of durability at no detriment requiring specific answers (it's also a reason why i think imperial knights never should've been released the way they were but here we are).
For two GW failing at making troop units any good or fullfill a role (especially in elite armies a theme from GW) is a failure on GW's side of things.
For three it allowed for easier management of the supposed asymetric balance of the game but not turning it into spam fest.But since it's gw that we are talking about the FOC was only a limit to some factions whilest others didn't have that, because in theory it allowed armies to have moe efficent units in some slots whilest not being oppresive due to a cap on said units.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
2022/12/30 10:34:41
Subject: 10th, will GW just bite the bullet and eliminate wargear costs? Should they?
vict0988 wrote: Wraithguard being bad while away from a Psyker isn't going to balance them, the only way to achieve balance is with an appropriate pts cost. You can have units with downsides that are bad, fair or strong and units without downsides that are bad, fair or strong.
Not Online!!! wrote: Frankly the increased availabilty in slots is also the removal of a cost.
I can't wait for the GSC horde lists with bonus CP to roll over some unsuspecting list with the new ark of omens detachment. Afterall 12 troop slots mean 6 suicide squads and 6 neophyte squads for the tax of one HQ instead of 2 and some cp.
Yes, the expansion of FOCs has also reduced balance by reducing scarcity.
If people only take Tactical Squads because of a Detachment tax and never any more than the tax requires then is there really internal balance? If SM paying their Tactical Squad tax to play causes SM to have a 40% win rate against armies with balanced or undercosted Troops choices is the external balance any better than in a world where Space Marines just skip the overcosted Troops and take their more appropriately costed Vindicators and get a 45% win rate? Balance is achieved through pts, everything else is fluff. You lose and gain weight through nutrition, exercise is for performance and aesthetics.
It is more for internal balance than external balance, but yes, it is just a tool in the toolbox. I think a useful one within 40k where the increased killing efficiency of elites and heavy support units tend to be difficult to balance against the (sometimes) better scoring of troops. There also used to be more 0-1 or 0-2 limits to restrict units that could be too powerful en masse.
ChargerIIC wrote: If algae farm paste with a little bit of your grandfather in it isn't Grimdark I don't know what is.
2022/12/30 10:38:13
Subject: 10th, will GW just bite the bullet and eliminate wargear costs? Should they?
vict0988 wrote: 60% of options having no use case because of a refusal to add costs to wargear isn't good, it is awful.
Then fix the wargear items or remove them.
The example in here of guard officer chainsword vs power sword is a good one. Either have a "guard Sargent melee weapon" which is a blended profile or leave the power sword as is and give them a guard chainsword that gives enough of a boost to give it an equivalent use case.
Blended profiles you say? like the CSM terminators? Because that is a good solution on paper but ridicoulus because it leads to the Traitor guardsmen squad i posted before. On paper a squad with nothing is equal in points to a squad with all the bling? And then we remove the bling and give a flat profile to the traitor guardsmen lasgun?
And why excactly should guard or csm for that matter get the removal of options when it is the SM codex that literally has more bolter variations than what 30k has in shooting weapons total at this stage?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/12/30 10:41:11
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
2022/12/30 11:24:59
Subject: 10th, will GW just bite the bullet and eliminate wargear costs? Should they?
vict0988 wrote: 60% of options having no use case because of a refusal to add costs to wargear isn't good, it is awful.
Then fix the wargear items or remove them.
The example in here of guard officer chainsword vs power sword is a good one. Either have a "guard Sargent melee weapon" which is a blended profile or leave the power sword as is and give them a guard chainsword that gives enough of a boost to give it an equivalent use case.
Blended profiles you say? like the CSM terminators? Because that is a good solution on paper but ridicoulus because it leads to the Traitor guardsmen squad i posted before. On paper a squad with nothing is equal in points to a squad with all the bling? And then we remove the bling and give a flat profile to the traitor guardsmen lasgun?
And why excactly should guard or csm for that matter get the removal of options when it is the SM codex that literally has more bolter variations than what 30k has in shooting weapons total at this stage?
I think it's perfectly reasonable to write the rules for a squad with the assumption they'll take whatever special/heavy options they have, especially if options are free.
So to go back to your examples, the issue with the traitor guard squad is that the upgrade items aren't well balanced against each other. If there is a reasonable opportunity cost to all options, without one being the "best" or "most efficient" then it doesn't matter any more.
Now before you inevitably say "but that's what points are for", we've decades of evidence that GW can't nuance the levels of difference between options, they simply don't allow the room or granularity. A 5pt window for a melee upgrade on a Sergeant is sat in that line between "not needed, save points" or it's "basically free include anyway". Balance the weapons out so there isn't an intentionally bad cheaper option and that goes away.
I'd also hop in to agree bolters want consolidation but ironically, bolt rifles, auto bolters and stalker rifles all have different niches that warrant their existence.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/12/30 11:29:17
2022/12/30 12:02:46
Subject: 10th, will GW just bite the bullet and eliminate wargear costs? Should they?
vict0988 wrote: 60% of options having no use case because of a refusal to add costs to wargear isn't good, it is awful.
Then fix the wargear items or remove them.
The example in here of guard officer chainsword vs power sword is a good one. Either have a "guard Sargent melee weapon" which is a blended profile or leave the power sword as is and give them a guard chainsword that gives enough of a boost to give it an equivalent use case.
Blended profiles you say? like the CSM terminators? Because that is a good solution on paper but ridicoulus because it leads to the Traitor guardsmen squad i posted before. On paper a squad with nothing is equal in points to a squad with all the bling? And then we remove the bling and give a flat profile to the traitor guardsmen lasgun?
And why excactly should guard or csm for that matter get the removal of options when it is the SM codex that literally has more bolter variations than what 30k has in shooting weapons total at this stage?
I think it's perfectly reasonable to write the rules for a squad with the assumption they'll take whatever special/heavy options they have, especially if options are free.
That is true, but inherently questionable design due to weapons being designed for specific tasks. Because it further leads to restrictions on gw's side and disallows for specialised units. At which point why even bother handing out options at all and operate on a fixed loadout system.
So to go back to your examples, the issue with the traitor guard squad is that the upgrade items aren't well balanced against each other. If there is a reasonable opportunity cost to all options, without one being the "best" or "most efficient" then it doesn't matter any more.
Nope, missed the issue, the issue is 3 special weapons but not being able to specialise whilest at the same time being far superior to normal cultists.
Now before you inevitably say "but that's what points are for", we've decades of evidence that GW can't nuance the levels of difference between options, they simply don't allow the room or granularity. A 5pt window for a melee upgrade on a Sergeant is sat in that line between "not needed, save points" or it's "basically free include anyway". Balance the weapons out so there isn't an intentionally bad cheaper option and that goes away.
but that is what points are for, GW running 40k with the same clowns in the rulesteam still whilest 30k does a better job already (still far from perfect but not anymore 5 pts increments for upgrades) is just a proof for that this is a GW issue and not a points as a system issue. You don't solve that however by streamlining and removing the system which should bring in opportunity cost, you fire instead the 40k ruleswriters which to this day refuse to take responsibility and borderline snap at people in FAQ's when they made the rules mistakes and not the players and get confronted by issues presented to them by the players. Or releasing codices that require pre-full-release nerfs.
I'd also hop in to agree bolters want consolidation but ironically, bolt rifles, auto bolters and stalker rifles all have different niches that warrant their existence.
5 bolt versions are good enough. Pistol, boltgun, Heavy bolter, assault bolter and a sniper / kraken bolter. The fact as it stands that we have literally more boltgun profiles than we had full weapon profiles in older SM codices or just flat out more boltguns than shooting weapons in 30k in total is just idiocy.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/12/30 12:09:06
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
2022/12/30 12:53:26
Subject: 10th, will GW just bite the bullet and eliminate wargear costs? Should they?
vict0988 wrote: 60% of options having no use case because of a refusal to add costs to wargear isn't good, it is awful.
Then fix the wargear items or remove them.
The example in here of guard officer chainsword vs power sword is a good one. Either have a "guard Sargent melee weapon" which is a blended profile or leave the power sword as is and give them a guard chainsword that gives enough of a boost to give it an equivalent use case.
You still haven't established what is wrong with the wargear or the benefits of a 0 cost wargear system. Your offering solutions to a problem that doesn't exist yet. Solutions that aren't lore friendly which is the whole purpose of playing 40k instead of chess. Now you also have 5 million more weapon profiles worth of bloat.
Not Online!!! wrote: For one not requiring x of a unit type is a clear hallmark that lists can skew and by extention turns the game into an overcomplex game of rock paper scissors because it is an easy way to tap into diffrent types of durability at no detriment requiring specific answers (it's also a reason why i think imperial knights never should've been released the way they were but here we are).
You can still skew with a CAD. There is no rhyme or reason to battlefield roles.
For three it allowed for easier management of the supposed asymetric balance of the game but not turning it into spam fest.
Spamfests were stopped by rule of 3 and secondaries. Units were not intelligently put into battlefield roles, limiting FLYERS and COMMANDERS does so in a much more appropriate way. Taking 3 units of Canoptek Wraiths and 3 units of Canoptek Scarabs has never and will never be a problem. Space Marines were allowed to spam Dreadnoughts in a CAD and many proponents of the CAD want something similar for their army. I say let freedom reign and punish spam through secondaries.
Dudeface wrote: I think it's perfectly reasonable to write the rules for a squad with the assumption they'll take whatever special/heavy options they have, especially if options are free.
Options were not free 12 months ago. It is immoral to tell people that their Plague Marines with boltguns and plague knives aren't valid game pieces any longer. What happened to Your Dudes?
Now before you inevitably say "but that's what points are for", we've decades of evidence that GW can't nuance the levels of difference between options, they simply don't allow the room or granularity. A 5pt window for a melee upgrade on a Sergeant is sat in that line between "not needed, save points" or it's "basically free include anyway". Balance the weapons out so there isn't an intentionally bad cheaper option and that goes away.
Storm shield VanVets are OP compared to boltgun VanVets but storm shield Terminators are balanced compared to combi-bolter Terminators, what do you do?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/12/30 12:54:47
2022/12/30 15:21:28
Subject: Re:10th, will GW just bite the bullet and eliminate wargear costs? Should they?
Daedalus81 wrote: I'm ok with free weapons to a point. When it's small units, overly restricted weapons, or units that don't often do much on the table then go for it.
When it comes to something like Kasrkin I'm a little more skeptical. Clearly no one will ever not take all four specials. OTOH this gives us a more consistent outcome for the unit in games.
Obviously some weapons are much more edge case ( e.g. flamers ) than others, but overall the difference in weapon function and targeting is so much better that there is no real one size fits all choice.
Good point, but with Kasrkin it's even weirder - not taking all the specials is actually the strongest loud out (taking only hotshot weapons including volley and maybe sniper and using the MW strat is already showing up in tournament topping lists).
For me, baking in some costs is fine but anything that substantially alters a units function has to be priced otherwise we end up in situations where options don't matter as there is simply a selection of items that are either underpriced or overpriced relative to the arbitrary value assigned to the unit.
Good to know - I haven't taken a deep dive on that book yet. I'm guessing they're using FRFSRF and Born Soldiers to push the MW. I wonder if there's some middle point where a couple meltas would be worth losing the 1MW on average from the strat.
Strats are another layer that ( bad or good ) can create scenarios that change your loadout choices. I know lots of people don't like them, but they do offer a limited way to improve things that are hard to balance through points ( but obviously they can also screw up balance ).
2022/12/30 15:24:06
Subject: 10th, will GW just bite the bullet and eliminate wargear costs? Should they?
Ideally, options should be equal, because points costs aren't all that great at differentiating options. After all, it's not the choice between a killgun and a metadeathgun or whatever that you're making, it's the choice between a whole squad with one of those. In a points system, many upgrades just won't ever be worth it. If you have a melee unit, and you have a 'choice' to get either a regular old melee weapon or a power axe, you either always take the power axe (if it's worth the points) or never. Many units in 40k either are just bodies or they carry serious weapons, and that's the choice you're making.
It would be much better to make all the different options actually worth it. Plasma and melta, to take common examples, both are serious upgrades that can be clearly differentiated. Flamers tend to be more difficult because they don't do all that much and
As for melee weapons, I'm a huge fan of just going back to having a few categories. There's no need to differentiate all sorts of differently shaped weapons because it only leads to more subobtimal choices without actually adding much to the game (sure, the numbers are a bit different but a power sword, axe, and what have you are all fundamentally the same kind of weapon). And so, you have a more or less efficient option. If you make them all the same you remove that whole issue without actually hurting the game.
For weapons that actually are pretty different,they should have clear roles that differentiate them, not some tiny differences in points. Sure, it can be 5 or 10 points for a weapon, but that's not what people are actual paying. They're paying 100 or 105 points for a unit, and if one option actually gives that unit more real capability, it will always be taken.
Good to know - I haven't taken a deep dive on that book yet. I'm guessing they're using FRFSRF and Born Soldiers to push the MW. I wonder if there's some middle point where a couple meltas would be worth losing the 1MW on average from the strat.
tauist wrote: Eliminate wargear costs? Sure, why not. If it gets the game closer to playing with PL, I'm good
Why would you want a different system to be closer to Power Level? Just use Power Level!
It'd be like me saying "Anything to make Tau more like Necrons, I'm good." Why wouldn't I just play Necrons if I love them so much. You have PL. Play PL. Why advocate for points to also be PL. What would be the point?
No, your analogue is flawed. I want PL to reign supreme over points because GW doesn't do consistent, which means PL and points will never get equal amount of attention
Good. PL doesn't warrant attention.
Any system that rewards mixmax with no drawbacks or favors a player that just likes a certain aesthetic is objectively bad writing. Feel free to defend that.
2022/12/30 15:34:09
Subject: Re:10th, will GW just bite the bullet and eliminate wargear costs? Should they?
Any system that rewards mixmax with no drawbacks or favors a player that just likes a certain aesthetic is objectively bad writing. Feel free to defend that.
gr8 b8 m8
They/them
2022/12/30 15:43:22
Subject: Re:10th, will GW just bite the bullet and eliminate wargear costs? Should they?
Good to know - I haven't taken a deep dive on that book yet. I'm guessing they're using FRFSRF and Born Soldiers to push the MW. I wonder if there's some middle point where a couple meltas would be worth losing the 1MW on average from the strat.
Dolnikan wrote: For weapons that actually are pretty different,they should have clear roles that differentiate them, not some tiny differences in points.
What are you going to do when the gauss blaster Immortal because of lacking synergy is totally unviable while the tesla carbine Immortal is meta?
2022/12/30 16:56:49
Subject: 10th, will GW just bite the bullet and eliminate wargear costs? Should they?
Dudeface wrote: So to go back to your examples, the issue with the traitor guard squad is that the upgrade items aren't well balanced against each other. If there is a reasonable opportunity cost to all options, without one being the "best" or "most efficient" then it doesn't matter any more.
Now before you inevitably say "but that's what points are for", we've decades of evidence that GW can't nuance the levels of difference between options, they simply don't allow the room or granularity. A 5pt window for a melee upgrade on a Sergeant is sat in that line between "not needed, save points" or it's "basically free include anyway". Balance the weapons out so there isn't an intentionally bad cheaper option and that goes away.
You can't make weapons equally viable just by tweaking stats when their relative utility heavily depends on what unit is carrying them. It's the same issue we see now where certain options are auto-takes on some units but worthless on others, because the costs are universal while utility varies.
As a very basic example, you might be able to balance out the stats of grenade launchers, plasma guns, flamers, and meltaguns in the context of a footslogging BS4+ Guardsman squad, but a squad of Scions that is BS3+ and can reliably deliver those weapons to inside 12" via DS is not going to have the same relative utility across weapons.
In the past, GW addressed this by putting points costs on the unit entries and varying them between units. That provided a bespoke means of adjustment. The use of points wasn't the problem, it was trying to set universal values for options; getting rid of the points cost won't make it any easier to balance out options, it just removes a balancing lever.
(Not even getting into stratagems or subfaction traits, because that only makes it worse- abilities like auto-wound or mortal wounds on 6s throw relative utility all out of whack.)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/12/30 17:08:55
Where does it say that weapon has to have current stats forever?
So you're going change half the weapon stat blocks in every codex, don't you see how much easier it'd be to just change the pts? Now tell me how you're going to make boltguns as good as twin boltguns.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/12/30 17:26:14
2022/12/30 17:32:33
Subject: Re:10th, will GW just bite the bullet and eliminate wargear costs? Should they?
Any system that rewards mixmax with no drawbacks or favors a player that just likes a certain aesthetic is objectively bad writing. Feel free to defend that.
gr8 b8 m8
Dont seethe at the fact I'm right. Any system you can only defend with "don't play like that" with the first part is bad enough, but please feel free to defend a system where one player has an advantage just for liking a specific aesthetic. This'll be good!
2022/12/30 17:57:38
Subject: Re:10th, will GW just bite the bullet and eliminate wargear costs? Should they?
Any system that rewards mixmax with no drawbacks or favors a player that just likes a certain aesthetic is objectively bad writing. Feel free to defend that.
gr8 b8 m8
Dont seethe at the fact I'm right. Any system you can only defend with "don't play like that" with the first part is bad enough, but please feel free to defend a system where one player has an advantage just for liking a specific aesthetic. This'll be good!
I'm waiting for your response to my earlier comment. Why are you so scared that you need to posture like this? Why do you demand that I need to defend something to you?
Moreover, why do you keep stirring the pot? Surely you realise that's exactly what you're attempting to do?
They/them
2022/12/30 18:14:49
Subject: Re:10th, will GW just bite the bullet and eliminate wargear costs? Should they?
Any system that rewards mixmax with no drawbacks or favors a player that just likes a certain aesthetic is objectively bad writing. Feel free to defend that.
gr8 b8 m8
Dont seethe at the fact I'm right. Any system you can only defend with "don't play like that" with the first part is bad enough, but please feel free to defend a system where one player has an advantage just for liking a specific aesthetic. This'll be good!
I'm waiting for your response to my earlier comment. Why are you so scared that you need to posture like this? Why do you demand that I need to defend something to you?
Moreover, why do you keep stirring the pot? Surely you realise that's exactly what you're attempting to do?
I'm not the one that's defending objectively bad game design in the name of "I can make an army list in 5 less minutes". Either address the point or admit you're wrong.
2022/12/30 18:22:29
Subject: 10th, will GW just bite the bullet and eliminate wargear costs? Should they?
Haighus wrote: Part of the problem is that GW is not great at applying negative consequences to upgrades to make them not automatically better, and is getting actively worse at it. Indeed, it seems they are going out of their way to allow players to ignore core rules that apply negatives to models. A good example is the increased utility of basically every weapon type over the editions- rapid fire gained the ability to move and shoot at full range. It then gained the ability to shoot and assault in the same turn. Pistols gained the ability to shoot in melee. Assault weapons gained the ability to shoot after advancing. Heavy weapons lost the restriction of being unable to shoot after moving- this last one was a big balance consideration in the past, an upgrade might be powerful, but you would sacrifice mobility for it
This is the part you have problems with?
No, pistols being able to do a clunky, inconvenient shot in melee (because they lost +1A) or heavies doing snap shots after move is peanuts next to broken gak stat inflation in xeno and chaos armies removing all the balance elements from the game. Tau used to max at 4+ skill, if you wanted more you needed markerlights and characters. Now? 2+ handed out like candy. Orkstodes and demons used to be T3, now it's T5 in half the entries because frak you. Eldar wraith units had very high stats in return for babysitter getting them to do what you wanted - no more, Eldar players whined so that was binned. Cheap chaos demon auxilias used to have 4+ skill to make 3+ of CSM stand out - nope, all 3+ now, hell, 2+ in some cases. Helbrutes and demon weapons were poweful but disobedient on roll of 1 - screw that, chaos must be predictable so that's gone too. Etc, etc, there were hundreds of characterful downsides in the game to balance upsides but not only it's in the past, the upsides that were once so good they needed a check are now being buffed into the stratosphere even though downside is gone
Meanwhile Imperial armies mostly kept the statlines and weapons, no matter how stupid they were - why SM veteran of centuries of warfare, clad in small tank, namely terminator plate, is still S4 T4 when any ork runt in t-shirt or small demon in loincloth now sports better stats? Why gravis statline is a joke next to ton of entries that shouldn't be even close to it? Why SM kept 3+/3+ when say Tau kid fresh out of academy (or DE teens with mom-funded gear on first raid) gets 2+/2+ just for existing? Why bolters are S4 AP- when junk colts bashed from scrap by GSC mooks are not only better than this, but are also better than most legendary, relic bolt pistols millennia old costing relic slots? Because frak you, that's why
No, this is an illustrative example of the overall problem that is easy to see in the core rules, and highlights an issue with the general trend of GW's game design towards less restrictions. The Eldar wraithguard example is very similar, but specific to a single faction and less generalisable.
The stat stuff is irrelevant- units with better stats have always existed and are entirely possible to balance appropriately with the correct costs (not just points). Costs which GW are increasingly removing.
Going back to this point, it was the endless new ways to reroll dice that has made each edition progressively snowball. Your HQs uses to be melee beatsticks, and rerolls from shooting was from twin linked weapons.
