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 18:24:15
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.
That fix to TL weapons was one of the smarter things GW did.
2022/12/30 19:37:05
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.)
The sad thing is, this was something they had actually started doing again towards the end of 8th (e.g. plasmaguns were markedly more expensive for Scions) but then completely abandoned in 9th.
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
2022/12/30 20:01:46
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.
That fix to TL weapons was one of the smarter things GW did.
Only if you like the massive increase in lethality we've seen since 8th edition. The change to Twin-Linked weapons literally doubled the potential damage of every weapon that it affected. I'm not sure what I'd consider "smart" about that needless "fix".
2022/12/30 20:08:14
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.
That fix to TL weapons was one of the smarter things GW did.
Only if you like the massive increase in lethality we've seen since 8th edition. The change to Twin-Linked weapons literally doubled the potential damage of every weapon that it affected. I'm not sure what I'd consider "smart" about that needless "fix".
Potential damage was way down because of Wound inflation. Average was also far from it. 2/1,333 2/1,5 2/1,667 2/1,833
It's simple and there are fewer brainless re-rolls is good. I don't think it was good or bad.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/12/30 20:10:18
2022/12/30 20:09:45
Subject: 10th, will GW just bite the bullet and eliminate wargear costs? Should they?
Lord Damocles wrote: Logically, twin-linked weapons should just fire like a normal weapon, but double the number of hits achieved.
That is how they originally worked.
Reading this debate is fascinating because while I'm hopelessly out of date, I am thinking of how - in addition to the points - GW did provide in-game balancing with various weapons. Heavy weapons were not only move or fire, but each variety had some limits on it as well. Heavy plasma had to recharge if used on the awesome S10 setting. Sustained fire dice were kind of a neat way to having high rates of fire but also force reloads/clear jams. Template weapons always hit, but had extreme short range.
Above all else, you didn't have the dizzying variety of troops and armies and doctrines and stratagems, which make it impossible to really playtest all the possible combinations.
I do stand by my prediction - GW will always choose whatever sells the most models and then when that subsides, change the rules again to force a new wave of retrofits.
Thus, "free" wargear with differentiated effects will cause a spike of sales in the most effective weapons/units, which will dominate the tabletop until GW decides they're ready to switch things back, and then there will be cries of joy and a renewed burst of sales/conversions as everyone goes to the new hotness.
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.
That fix to TL weapons was one of the smarter things GW did.
Only if you like the massive increase in lethality we've seen since 8th edition. The change to Twin-Linked weapons literally doubled the potential damage of every weapon that it affected. I'm not sure what I'd consider "smart" about that needless "fix".
It's smart because it was just rerolls on several weapons, and therefore the weapons were unable to be buffed outside rerolling to wound/pen. NOW there's reason to use a reroll hit buff on those weapons.
In terms of lethality, I'd argue the only problem has been Assault Cannons.
2022/12/30 22:18:17
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.
That fix to TL weapons was one of the smarter things GW did.
Only if you like the massive increase in lethality we've seen since 8th edition. The change to Twin-Linked weapons literally doubled the potential damage of every weapon that it affected. I'm not sure what I'd consider "smart" about that needless "fix".
It's smart because it was just rerolls on several weapons, and therefore the weapons were unable to be buffed outside rerolling to wound/pen. NOW there's reason to use a reroll hit buff on those weapons.
In terms of lethality, I'd argue the only problem has been Assault Cannons.
And I'd argue that "buffs" are one of the reasons that actual balance is so hard to achieve. Combo Hammer can go burn, as far as I'm concerned.
2022/12/30 22:21:35
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.
That fix to TL weapons was one of the smarter things GW did.
Only if you like the massive increase in lethality we've seen since 8th edition. The change to Twin-Linked weapons literally doubled the potential damage of every weapon that it affected. I'm not sure what I'd consider "smart" about that needless "fix".
It's smart because it was just rerolls on several weapons, and therefore the weapons were unable to be buffed outside rerolling to wound/pen. NOW there's reason to use a reroll hit buff on those weapons.
In terms of lethality, I'd argue the only problem has been Assault Cannons.
You mean that doubling the shots then giving the bulk lf the game rerolls anyway is smart?
2022/12/30 22:29:11
Subject: 10th, will GW just bite the bullet and eliminate wargear costs? Should they?
At this point all I can do is shrug and say "feth it." The modern 40k is in a state I find so unfun that I'm not currently playing it, so from my perspective the only way to go is up. It can't get worse because I would go from not playing to... still not playing, but if GW starts throwing stuff at the wall there's a chance something will stick.
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.
That fix to TL weapons was one of the smarter things GW did.
Only if you like the massive increase in lethality we've seen since 8th edition. The change to Twin-Linked weapons literally doubled the potential damage of every weapon that it affected. I'm not sure what I'd consider "smart" about that needless "fix".
It's smart because it was just rerolls on several weapons, and therefore the weapons were unable to be buffed outside rerolling to wound/pen. NOW there's reason to use a reroll hit buff on those weapons.
In terms of lethality, I'd argue the only problem has been Assault Cannons.
And I'd argue that "buffs" are one of the reasons that actual balance is so hard to achieve. Combo Hammer can go burn, as far as I'm concerned.
The game has always been Combohammer. Being unable to accept that is a problem.
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.
That fix to TL weapons was one of the smarter things GW did.
Only if you like the massive increase in lethality we've seen since 8th edition. The change to Twin-Linked weapons literally doubled the potential damage of every weapon that it affected. I'm not sure what I'd consider "smart" about that needless "fix".
It's smart because it was just rerolls on several weapons, and therefore the weapons were unable to be buffed outside rerolling to wound/pen. NOW there's reason to use a reroll hit buff on those weapons.
In terms of lethality, I'd argue the only problem has been Assault Cannons.
You mean that doubling the shots then giving the bulk lf the game rerolls anyway is smart?
Define "bulk of the game".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/12/30 22:47:31
2022/12/30 22:50:10
Subject: 10th, will GW just bite the bullet and eliminate wargear costs? Should they?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: 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.
What point? Why? You're the one gakking the bed over the idea of it.
This isn't even a discussion. You could absolutely just turn around and say "fair enough, enjoy yourself". But no, you're the one stirring the pot, even now. Why? Are you intimidated by it? Address the point, or admit you're wrong.
They/them
2022/12/31 00:21:54
Subject: 10th, will GW just bite the bullet and eliminate wargear costs? Should they?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: 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.
What point? Why? You're the one gakking the bed over the idea of it.
This isn't even a discussion. You could absolutely just turn around and say "fair enough, enjoy yourself". But no, you're the one stirring the pot, even now. Why? Are you intimidated by it? Address the point, or admit you're wrong.
"Let people enjoy things" is the ultimate cop out to an analysis of your viewpoint. Well guess what, I enjoy good game design. You obviously don't and won't defend it outside "I can make a list in 5 less minutes".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/12/31 01:35:13
2022/12/31 02:34:59
Subject: 10th, will GW just bite the bullet and eliminate wargear costs? Should they?
And not everything used to be Twin-Linked.
Plus, there is no BS value where full rerolls is more deadly than double shots. BS 6+ gets close-but not quite.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2022/12/31 05:38:42
Subject: 10th, will GW just bite the bullet and eliminate wargear costs? Should they?
EviscerationPlague wrote: Well guess what, I enjoy good game design. You obviously don't and won't defend it outside "I can make a list in 5 less minutes".
So now that's established, we can all move on.
2022/12/31 14:27:49
Subject: 10th, will GW just bite the bullet and eliminate wargear costs? Should they?
JNAProductions wrote: And not everything used to be Twin-Linked.
Plus, there is no BS value where full rerolls is more deadly than double shots. BS 6+ gets close-but not quite.
As a game mechanic, re-rolling is not only time-consuming, but also terribly unbalanced in a point-based system. It isn't a flat rate thing; the odds shift of re-rolling 3+ are considerably different than 6+.
I sometimes wonder if GW doesn't understand basic probability or simply doesn't care.
JNAProductions wrote: And not everything used to be Twin-Linked.
Plus, there is no BS value where full rerolls is more deadly than double shots. BS 6+ gets close-but not quite.
As a game mechanic, re-rolling is not only time-consuming, but also terribly unbalanced in a point-based system. It isn't a flat rate thing; the odds shift of re-rolling 3+ are considerably different than 6+.
I sometimes wonder if GW doesn't understand basic probability or simply doesn't care.
Honestly, 40k has become riddled with time-wasting mechanics.
e.g. Psychic powers that involve a ridiculous number of steps for what amounts to d3 mortal wounds, because doing otherwise would involve admitting that every third power is a Smite clone.
These are by no means the worst offenders but they serve to illustrate how 40k increasingly relies on faffing about to try and distract from the monotony of its mechanics.
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
2022/12/31 19:01:48
Subject: 10th, will GW just bite the bullet and eliminate wargear costs? Should they?
JNAProductions wrote: And not everything used to be Twin-Linked.
Plus, there is no BS value where full rerolls is more deadly than double shots. BS 6+ gets close-but not quite.
As a game mechanic, re-rolling is not only time-consuming, but also terribly unbalanced in a point-based system. It isn't a flat rate thing; the odds shift of re-rolling 3+ are considerably different than 6+.
I sometimes wonder if GW doesn't understand basic probability or simply doesn't care.
Honestly, 40k has become riddled with time-wasting mechanics.
e.g. Psychic powers that involve a ridiculous number of steps for what amounts to d3 mortal wounds, because doing otherwise would involve admitting that every third power is a Smite clone.
These are by no means the worst offenders but they serve to illustrate how 40k increasingly relies on faffing about to try and distract from the monotony of its mechanics.
What powers are you thinking of?
Witchfire: Tzeentch’s Firestorm has a warp charge value of 6. If manifested, select one enemy unit within 18" of and visible to this PSYKER and roll nine D6. For each roll of 6, that enemy unit suffers 1 mortal wound. If the result of the Psychic test was an unmodified 9+, that enemy unit suffers 1 mortal wound for each roll of 5+ instead.
Is that too complicated?
2022/12/31 23:36:04
Subject: 10th, will GW just bite the bullet and eliminate wargear costs? Should they?
Witchfire: Tzeentch’s Firestorm has a warp charge value of 6. If manifested, select one enemy unit within 18" of and visible to this PSYKER and roll nine D6. For each roll of 6, that enemy unit suffers 1 mortal wound. If the result of the Psychic test was an unmodified 9+, that enemy unit suffers 1 mortal wound for each roll of 5+ instead.
Is that too complicated?
When your re-rolling, moding rolls, and on top of that the powers were not created to fail half the time, so most of them go off for EACH unit in the entire army, often multiple times, then yes, tracking of when and which were used becomes hard. Both for people who are not used to using mass psychic powers themselfs and for those that have to keep track of their own.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
2023/01/01 01:04:45
Subject: 10th, will GW just bite the bullet and eliminate wargear costs? Should they?
Witchfire: Tzeentch’s Firestorm has a warp charge value of 6. If manifested, select one enemy unit within 18" of and visible to this PSYKER and roll nine D6. For each roll of 6, that enemy unit suffers 1 mortal wound. If the result of the Psychic test was an unmodified 9+, that enemy unit suffers 1 mortal wound for each roll of 5+ instead.
Is that too complicated?
You almost found it.
Witchfire: Baleful Devolution has a warp charge value of 8. If manifested, select one enemy unit within 18" of and visible to this PSYKER that contains 6 or more models. Roll a number of D6 equal to the result of the Psychic test: for each roll of 6, that enemy unit suffers D3 mortal wounds.
So, there are 36 possible casting results for a psychic test, factoring in the +1 to cast TS get, the average expected MW value of this spell is 1.88 MWs. Compared to, your 1st smite does on average 2.08 MWs, 2nd 1.92, 3rd 1.69.
If you cast it on a 13 (roll a 12) you get to roll 2 dice for the cast, 13 dice to see how many d3 MWs you do, and then 2.17 dice to determine the MWs, so 17.17 dice on average, in order to dish out 4.33 MWs on average. To be fair, the average number of dice you roll is 2.65 thanks to so many outcomes being a failed cast, but what a waste of time on the successes.
2023/01/01 02:59:40
Subject: 10th, will GW just bite the bullet and eliminate wargear costs? Should they?
I have always disliked 'roll a dice to roll a dice' mechanics but I have come to really resent them in recent years due to their proliferation. AoS in particular has a TON of abilities which inflict d3 mortal wounds on a 2+. Seriously just make it a flat d3 and save us the time, the average damage barely changes. And d3 MWs on a 4+? Just make it 1. That's it. No need to roll a dice for what is ultimately a small side mechanic. Or if they REALLY want the randomness they could make it d6-3, which is the same thing but faster and easier.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/01/01 03:00:51
What if, and I'm going out on a limb here, but the possible war gear options were "baked into the cost" of said unit? So instead of trying to average out the cost of every possible weapon, a Skittarri ranger was costed for what they COULD accomplish, not what their stats reflect.
This would be a major nerf to elite armies, and knights, but hey, no one really likes Custodes or knights much anyway.
I feel like Custodian Guardians and Sagitarum need a points bump now with the new system for taking troops. The Sag guard are possibly one of the best troops in the game. Harlequins need a massive nerf by this thinking. Each troupe should cost over 200 points, with all war gear baked in.
2023/01/01 11:38:43
Subject: 10th, will GW just bite the bullet and eliminate wargear costs? Should they?
NinthMusketeer wrote: I have always disliked 'roll a dice to roll a dice' mechanics but I have come to really resent them in recent years due to their proliferation. AoS in particular has a TON of abilities which inflict d3 mortal wounds on a 2+. Seriously just make it a flat d3 and save us the time, the average damage barely changes. And d3 MWs on a 4+? Just make it 1. That's it. No need to roll a dice for what is ultimately a small side mechanic. Or if they REALLY want the randomness they could make it d6-3, which is the same thing but faster and easier.
I agree, when I rewrote the 40k battlezones I did this for all the mechanics. I just haven't found a lot of that in psychic powers. Fixing Baleful Devolution would be pretty easy (1MW on 5+ instead of D3 on 6+). The problem is that as Vipoid noted Baleful Devolution is really just a copy of Tzeentch's Firestorm which is already pretty close to just being Smite in the first place.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: What if, and I'm going out on a limb here, but the possible war gear options were "baked into the cost" of said unit? So instead of trying to average out the cost of every possible weapon, a Skittarri ranger was costed for what they COULD accomplish, not what their stats reflect.
This would be a major nerf to elite armies, and knights, but hey, no one really likes Custodes or knights much anyway.
I feel like Custodian Guardians and Sagitarum need a points bump now with the new system for taking troops. The Sag guard are possibly one of the best troops in the game. Harlequins need a massive nerf by this thinking. Each troupe should cost over 200 points, with all war gear baked in.
If you want Knights, Custodes and Harlequins to be bad you can make them overpriced without making them internally unbalanced by removing wargear costs.
2023/01/01 11:45:50
Subject: 10th, will GW just bite the bullet and eliminate wargear costs? Should they?
They probably will remove wargear costs, and it will suck, but at the same time they appear to be drastically cutting down on options (which also sucks) so it balances out I guess?
The sad truth about the options is that the game has gotten so big and bloated that it has out grown having a detailed list of squad upgrades; 40k is closer to a mass battle game than a skirmish game, and in mass battle games you tend not to have huge upgrade lists.
You already see that with primaris, which unless I'm mistaken, tend not to have any versatility and incredibly specific loadouts and roles, in contrast to how marines used to have a variety of options.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/01/01 11:46:28
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
2023/01/01 12:11:24
Subject: 10th, will GW just bite the bullet and eliminate wargear costs? Should they?
You already see that with primaris, which unless I'm mistaken, tend not to have any versatility and incredibly specific loadouts and roles, in contrast to how marines used to have a variety of options.
On the other hand, Primaris have a nonsensical proliferation of micro-differentiated wargear like their half-dozen variant bolt rifles, or stuff nobody asked for, e.g. heavy bolt pistols.
2023/01/01 12:15:35
Subject: 10th, will GW just bite the bullet and eliminate wargear costs? Should they?
You already see that with primaris, which unless I'm mistaken, tend not to have any versatility and incredibly specific loadouts and roles, in contrast to how marines used to have a variety of options.
On the other hand, Primaris have a nonsensical proliferation of micro-differentiated wargear like their half-dozen variant bolt rifles, or stuff nobody asked for, e.g. heavy bolt pistols.
True, it's like GW really can't decide if they want to streamline the game and complete it's transition to a mass battle wargame (hence limited loadouts), or keep the granularity in equipment as in previous editions (hence the sheer glut of bespoke rules, equipment and strats).
They really need to commit to one.
I don't know who's writing the rules, but I can tell they aren't experienced. Must be that "hire for enthusiasm" policy they have going.
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
~4100
~1660
