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.

Billicus wrote:
There's a world of difference between "do I add the banner to this unit" and "do I give this heavy weapon team three mortars or three lascannons". You're making silly excuses.

That's an odd example because mortars and lascannons do have extremely different roles/usages and I can certainly see the trade-offs that go into the calculus of determining which option to take.

 Slinky wrote:
None of my Leman Russ tanks have sponsons or HK missiles modelled on, but I guess they will all have them in games now...

*edit* Also, all the Leman Russ variants have different points, but then a Tank Commander costs the same no matter which turret gun?

Yep. Simplified, not simple!

The tank commander is a great example, another one is Deathwatch Killteam unit composition... a lot of 0-2 or 0-4 possibilities, but you better bring a squad of 5 or 10 dudes...

90% sure VVs are getting a new kit and card to match the sternguard.

And Wulfen or TWC? Are they getting a kit this year?

 Trickstick wrote:

 Slinky wrote:
None of my Leman Russ tanks have sponsons or HK missiles modelled on, but I guess they will all have them in games now...

Is wysiwyg even a rule any more?

GW can eat my butt if they think I am gonna remodel everything with this change.

It's what I say it has at this point, no point difference so what does it matter right?

Justyn wrote:

90% sure VVs are getting a new kit and card to match the sternguard.

And Wulfen or TWC? Are they getting a kit this year?

Obviously not? They aren't on the roadmap.

tneva82 wrote:
Uhhuh. Crusade came in 9e 40k. Aos3 wlth it's ptg which is still different to crusade year later

AoS 1.5 had the fixed unit sizes/cost and free upgrades.

 Rihgu wrote:

Billicus wrote:
There's a world of difference between "do I add the banner to this unit" and "do I give this heavy weapon team three mortars or three lascannons". You're making silly excuses.

That's an odd example because mortars and lascannons do have extremely different roles/usages and I can certainly see the trade-offs that go into the calculus of determining which option to take.

They have different uses but a lascannon is infinitely better in 90% of situations and tends to be a 20pt per model upgrade. It's not that odd of an example if you're passingly familiar with Warhammer 40,000.

Obviously not? They aren't on the roadmap.

Oh I know. And I know VV probably are. I just don't understand who at GW got bad-touched by SW at some point.

 Trickstick wrote:

 Slinky wrote:
None of my Leman Russ tanks have sponsons or HK missiles modelled on, but I guess they will all have them in games now...

Is wysiwyg even a rule any more?

I dunno, what should I do with my dual pistol Vanguard, huh?

Voss wrote:
Careful. You're going to invoke the monkey's paw and get a New! Updated! 10 man death company box with exactly 2 powerfists and a datacard to match.

90% sure VVs are getting a new kit and card to match the sternguard.

It's a friggin' shame that the CSM Termies kit got made before the paradigm. Bleh.

 Rihgu wrote:

Billicus wrote:
There's a world of difference between "do I add the banner to this unit" and "do I give this heavy weapon team three mortars or three lascannons". You're making silly excuses.

That's an odd example because mortars and lascannons do have extremely different roles/usages and I can certainly see the trade-offs that go into the calculus of determining which option to take.

OK, try this one then: Death Company with chainswords and bolt pistols are literally the wrong choice every single time. Power weapon and plasma pistol is the same cost (because everything is) and is better in every way. There's no trade-off. If you choose the former you're just wrong. Even more stupidly, the Necron Tomb Blade has a piece of equipment that improves its save from 4+ to 3+. It's free and doesn't compete with anything else. There is literally zero reason not to take it, so why is it even an option in the first place? Why don't they just have a 3+save?

AoS is based largely around sidegrades or at least changes that alter the role or preferred target of a unit. Upgrades like banners will always be taken and are folded into the cost. 40k units very often have access to lots of different options of wildly varying effectiveness. GW have simultaneously retained most of those options while also removing points, which is the absolute stupidest way to deal with the situation.

What's really frustrating with the DC example, is Vanguard Vets now have no options and everything has been consolidated into Heirloom Weapons. But GW put so little effort into this change they didn't even think to apply the same logic to DC and combine the chainswords and power weapons into some generic Death Company close combat weapon.

GW really dropped the balls on Hellguns/Hotshot weapons. Used to be they were high, high AP weapons with short range and low Str to compensate, and you had to play around that, they were kinda unique.

Look at it now, just a generic trash with a meager point of AP and the same range as everything else, it's generic, and boring.

 Trickstick wrote:

 Slinky wrote:
None of my Leman Russ tanks have sponsons or HK missiles modelled on, but I guess they will all have them in games now...

Is wysiwyg even a rule any more?

I dont know, but I gave up when I read the following rule from 10th:
Conversion weapons are more powerful at longer range: when firing at a target at least 12″ away, they inflict Critical Hits on hit rolls of 4+. Critical Hits don’t do anything in and of themselves, but they can trigger other abilities, such as Lethal Hits or Sustained Hits.

Thats not streamlined at all. Thats bloody awful.

I'm going to play some 10th, but I stick mostly to 3rd 40k and some Mordheim. I want to partake in the newest editions, I really do. But I just cant learn all the rules, scenarios and codexi before some new rules paradigm shifts.

 triplegrim wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

 Slinky wrote:
None of my Leman Russ tanks have sponsons or HK missiles modelled on, but I guess they will all have them in games now...

Is wysiwyg even a rule any more?

I dont know, but I gave up when I read the following rule from 10th:
Conversion weapons are more powerful at longer range: when firing at a target at least 12″ away, they inflict Critical Hits on hit rolls of 4+. Critical Hits don’t do anything in and of themselves, but they can trigger other abilities, such as Lethal Hits or Sustained Hits.

Thats not streamlined at all. Thats bloody awful.

That's... not actually what the rule says, however. That's part of the rule plus a poor definition of critical hits with examples.
There are things to complain about, but that's stacking the straw man.

But I just cant learn all the rules, scenarios and codexi before some new rules paradigm shifts.

Gotta keep the ultra competitive types chasing the meta.

Slipspace wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:

Billicus wrote:
There's a world of difference between "do I add the banner to this unit" and "do I give this heavy weapon team three mortars or three lascannons". You're making silly excuses.

That's an odd example because mortars and lascannons do have extremely different roles/usages and I can certainly see the trade-offs that go into the calculus of determining which option to take.

OK, try this one then: Death Company with chainswords and bolt pistols are literally the wrong choice every single time. Power weapon and plasma pistol is the same cost (because everything is) and is better in every way. There's no trade-off. If you choose the former you're just wrong. Even more stupidly, the Necron Tomb Blade has a piece of equipment that improves its save from 4+ to 3+. It's free and doesn't compete with anything else. There is literally zero reason not to take it, so why is it even an option in the first place? Why don't they just have a 3+save?

AoS is based largely around sidegrades or at least changes that alter the role or preferred target of a unit. Upgrades like banners will always be taken and are folded into the cost. 40k units very often have access to lots of different options of wildly varying effectiveness. GW have simultaneously retained most of those options while also removing points, which is the absolute stupidest way to deal with the situation.

What's really frustrating with the DC example, is Vanguard Vets now have no options and everything has been consolidated into Heirloom Weapons. But GW put so little effort into this change they didn't even think to apply the same logic to DC and combine the chainswords and power weapons into some generic Death Company close combat weapon.

Arkanaut Company with nothing but pistols is literally the wrong choice every single time. Light Skyhook, skypike, volley pistol, and volleygun are the same cost (because everything is) and is better in every way. There is no trade-off. If you choose the former you're just wrong. There is literally zero reason not to take it, so why is it even an option in the first place?

And again, there are many such units with these sorts of options in Age of Sigmar. The community at-large is perfectly a-okay with this, it's fine, because you're going to be picking the best options any ways. The bad options are for people who are fine with picking bad options.

You could make an aethermatic volley-gun 10 points and a light skyhook 15 points and in 90% of cases people would still pay the points for them because they're vital for the unit's role in-game.

AoS's sidegrades are like when you can pick between a spear or a sword for a unit - an option that's becoming increasingly rare as time goes on as the weapon gets rolled into "spears and swords" with one profile, because people always pick the optimal profile anyways. And even with the minor side-grade differences, there is always an optimal choice. This weapon is 2" range 4+ to hit, 3+ to wound and the other is 1" range, 3+ to hit, and 4+ to wound? Okay, I have easy access to +1 to hit, so spear is always correct. Oh, it's the season where models in base-to-base can fight over each other anyways, the sword is better now. etc etc etc

I sympathize with the people who picked options that were once good and are now bad. That sucks when that happens. But to suggest this new system is impossible to work with is just useless gnashing of teeth. The system works perfectly fine, as long as you work within it. People can make bad choices with their units even within a hyper-modular points system, let's not pretend AoS style/PL style points are uniquely terrible in any way.

 Bobthehero wrote:
GW really dropped the balls on Hellguns/Hotshot weapons. Used to be they were high, high AP weapons with short range and low Str to compensate, and you had to play around that, they were kinda unique.

Look at it now, just a generic trash with a meager point of AP and the same range as everything else, it's generic, and boring.

The entire graded armor piercing is a mistake, imo. Makes weapons bland and "just fire and see what sticks".

Some weapons should bounce off a power armor of a Space Marine, and others should pierce through it. It's also easier to keep track off.

And with all the critical, lethal, sustained, mortal hit wounds and plethora of Power fists and str 8 weapons in the game, there are other ways to granulate weapons that just flat out leaves armor either resistant or non resistant to some weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:

 triplegrim wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

 Slinky wrote:
None of my Leman Russ tanks have sponsons or HK missiles modelled on, but I guess they will all have them in games now...

Is wysiwyg even a rule any more?

I dont know, but I gave up when I read the following rule from 10th:
Conversion weapons are more powerful at longer range: when firing at a target at least 12″ away, they inflict Critical Hits on hit rolls of 4+. Critical Hits don’t do anything in and of themselves, but they can trigger other abilities, such as Lethal Hits or Sustained Hits.

Thats not streamlined at all. Thats bloody awful.

That's... not actually what the rule says, however. That's part of the rule plus a poor definition of critical hits with examples.
There are things to complain about, but that's stacking the straw man.

My point was that we've gone from regular and mortal wounds to critical, lethal and sustained hits. There is also something called devastating hits. I hope this is streamlining, but I have a hard time believing that.

I don't think GW has ever insisted on WYSIWYG? (In before it was in a paragraph of the 5th edition rules I'm forgetting).

I guess I'm sort of half-full, half empty. In terms of my existing stuff, I'm feeling very negative about this. There may have been issues with the 8th-9th edition evolution, but it seems to have been sacrificed for an incredibly simple system which may end up being a complete mess. I think me and DE may be done, because there's almost no emotional/fluff hooks to keep me in.

On the other, I think if you were looking to start 40k for the first time, its seemingly a lot easier to start than 9th. And this whole "they've made the unit like what's in the box" isn't so much of a problem given you'll probably be buying boxes. I can see armies where I don't have so much built up baggage and think "yeah, that might be fun" even if the existing players are feeling the same as I am about DE.

Slipspace wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:

Billicus wrote:
There's a world of difference between "do I add the banner to this unit" and "do I give this heavy weapon team three mortars or three lascannons". You're making silly excuses.

That's an odd example because mortars and lascannons do have extremely different roles/usages and I can certainly see the trade-offs that go into the calculus of determining which option to take.

OK, try this one then: Death Company with chainswords and bolt pistols are literally the wrong choice every single time. Power weapon and plasma pistol is the same cost (because everything is) and is better in every way. There's no trade-off. If you choose the former you're just wrong. Even more stupidly, the Necron Tomb Blade has a piece of equipment that improves its save from 4+ to 3+. It's free and doesn't compete with anything else. There is literally zero reason not to take it, so why is it even an option in the first place? Why don't they just have a 3+save?

AoS is based largely around sidegrades or at least changes that alter the role or preferred target of a unit. Upgrades like banners will always be taken and are folded into the cost. 40k units very often have access to lots of different options of wildly varying effectiveness. GW have simultaneously retained most of those options while also removing points, which is the absolute stupidest way to deal with the situation.

100% this.

With this system, I'll never use anything but a plasma pistol on any of my sergeants. I'll never not take both a Venom Cannon and Barbed Strangler on my Warriors. If you don't have sponsons on your Leman Russ your unit is shittier for literally no reason. You have less choice, not more.

I've seen people argue that this way you can build whatever came in the kit and not be penalized for it... except you are getting penalized for it, you seriously are, because if you build something other than the most powerful configuration with all the bells and whistles you're still paying the same. Oh, you thought your Guardsmen look good with just their basic lasguns as light infantry? What are you, stupid?

Bobthehero wrote:GW really dropped the balls on Hellguns/Hotshot weapons. Used to be they were high, high AP weapons with short range and low Str to compensate, and you had to play around that, they were kinda unique.

Look at it now, just a generic trash with a meager point of AP and the same range as everything else, it's generic, and boring.

To be fair, prior to the 5th Ed Cruddace Codex hellguns were just lasguns with AP5. That point of -1AP so it actually does something to Marines is more impactful.

 Rihgu wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:

Billicus wrote:
There's a world of difference between "do I add the banner to this unit" and "do I give this heavy weapon team three mortars or three lascannons". You're making silly excuses.

That's an odd example because mortars and lascannons do have extremely different roles/usages and I can certainly see the trade-offs that go into the calculus of determining which option to take.

OK, try this one then: Death Company with chainswords and bolt pistols are literally the wrong choice every single time. Power weapon and plasma pistol is the same cost (because everything is) and is better in every way. There's no trade-off. If you choose the former you're just wrong. Even more stupidly, the Necron Tomb Blade has a piece of equipment that improves its save from 4+ to 3+. It's free and doesn't compete with anything else. There is literally zero reason not to take it, so why is it even an option in the first place? Why don't they just have a 3+save?

AoS is based largely around sidegrades or at least changes that alter the role or preferred target of a unit. Upgrades like banners will always be taken and are folded into the cost. 40k units very often have access to lots of different options of wildly varying effectiveness. GW have simultaneously retained most of those options while also removing points, which is the absolute stupidest way to deal with the situation.

What's really frustrating with the DC example, is Vanguard Vets now have no options and everything has been consolidated into Heirloom Weapons. But GW put so little effort into this change they didn't even think to apply the same logic to DC and combine the chainswords and power weapons into some generic Death Company close combat weapon.

Spoiler:

Arkanaut Company with nothing but pistols is literally the wrong choice every single time. Light Skyhook, skypike, volley pistol, and volleygun are the same cost (because everything is) and is better in every way. There is no trade-off. If you choose the former you're just wrong. There is literally zero reason not to take it, so why is it even an option in the first place?

And again, there are many such units with these sorts of options in Age of Sigmar. The community at-large is perfectly a-okay with this, it's fine, because you're going to be picking the best options any ways. The bad options are for people who are fine with picking bad options.

You could make an aethermatic volley-gun 10 points and a light skyhook 15 points and in 90% of cases people would still pay the points for them because they're vital for the unit's role in-game.

AoS's sidegrades are like when you can pick between a spear or a sword for a unit - an option that's becoming increasingly rare as time goes on as the weapon gets rolled into "spears and swords" with one profile, because people always pick the optimal profile anyways. And even with the minor side-grade differences, there is always an optimal choice. This weapon is 2" range 4+ to hit, 3+ to wound and the other is 1" range, 3+ to hit, and 4+ to wound? Okay, I have easy access to +1 to hit, so spear is always correct. Oh, it's the season where models in base-to-base can fight over each other anyways, the sword is better now. etc etc etc

I sympathize with the people who picked options that were once good and are now bad. That sucks when that happens. But to suggest this new system is impossible to work with is just useless gnashing of teeth. The system works perfectly fine, as long as you work within it. People can make bad choices with their units even within a hyper-modular points system, let's not pretend AoS style/PL style points are uniquely terrible in any way.

 catbarf wrote:


To be fair, prior to the 5th Ed Cruddace Codex hellguns were just lasguns with AP5. That point of -1AP so it actually does something to Marines is more impactful.

In 3rd Hellguns comes with a targeter, allowing pre-measuring, contrary to regular weapons. But yeah, you have a point.

 catbarf wrote:

To be fair, prior to the 5th Ed Cruddace Codex hellguns were just lasguns with AP5. That point of -1AP so it actually does something to Marines is more impactful.

And they were incredibly generic, boring weapons, then, too, which sucked. 5-6-7th were when they were at their best, imo, as far as making it a distinctive weapon.

 Trickstick wrote:

 Slinky wrote:
None of my Leman Russ tanks have sponsons or HK missiles modelled on, but I guess they will all have them in games now...

Is wysiwyg even a rule any more?

Unlike GOOD games, the unit cards don't help you determine what models are actually equipped with. So yes.

I just looked at BA index cards.

So I can get 10 Death Company SMs with Jump packs, and all 10 of them can have a power fist?

That wont last.

They'll change the setup fairly quickly.

And yes, this is probably the end of WYSIWG. I am a bit sad about that, as a modeller, but as a gamer I like it.

While I sympathize with the poster a few pages back with 6 Dire Avengers, who now can only field 5, leaving one on the shelf. I think proxying/having a unit filler for those who lack a model or two will become common. I have 3x5 stealth suits painted in different schemes. I'd rather just put some Tau debris or a radar transmitter as the sixth unit if I have to, rather than paint another one post-completion.


Also. I expect the same points system for Warhammer the Old World, btw. GW is going for the wider markets, and this points system is what they believe is part of grabbing that demographic.

11th edition may even have five or six standardized price classes (i.e. 50, 80, 100, 175, 350) and then they'll just fit the unit into that slot, removing or adding a wound or two to make it the appropriate weight for the class.

Previously, not going balls out on upgrades on every single unit was important for a balanced army, and being judicious with those upgrades was a skill. Now, picking best in slot is all that matters, which is dogshit. This edition is DOA for me, may even cancel my Leviathan order since I know I won't be making use of the book now.

 triplegrim wrote:
And yes, this is probably the end of WYSIWG. I am a bit sad about that, as a modeller, but as a gamer I like it.

If it's the end of WYSIWYG, and I kinda doubt it is, wouldn't that promote modelling for visual effect over modelling for mechanical efficiency? You'd be able to theme your units as you saw fit, without worrying about sub optimal loadouts weighing you down during actual play.

 His Master's Voice wrote:
You'd be able to theme your units as you saw fit, without worrying about sub optimal loadouts weighing you down during actual play.

A Leman Russ that shoots from invisible sponsons is just dumb on the face of it.

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 triplegrim wrote:
And yes, this is probably the end of WYSIWG. I am a bit sad about that, as a modeller, but as a gamer I like it.

If it's the end of WYSIWYG, and I kinda doubt it is, wouldn't that promote modelling for visual effect over modelling for mechanical efficiency? You'd be able to theme your units as you saw fit, without worrying about sub optimal loadouts weighing you down during actual play.

WYSIWYG makes games look much better.

 Rihgu wrote:

Spoiler:

Slipspace wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:

Billicus wrote:
There's a world of difference between "do I add the banner to this unit" and "do I give this heavy weapon team three mortars or three lascannons". You're making silly excuses.

That's an odd example because mortars and lascannons do have extremely different roles/usages and I can certainly see the trade-offs that go into the calculus of determining which option to take.

OK, try this one then: Death Company with chainswords and bolt pistols are literally the wrong choice every single time. Power weapon and plasma pistol is the same cost (because everything is) and is better in every way. There's no trade-off. If you choose the former you're just wrong. Even more stupidly, the Necron Tomb Blade has a piece of equipment that improves its save from 4+ to 3+. It's free and doesn't compete with anything else. There is literally zero reason not to take it, so why is it even an option in the first place? Why don't they just have a 3+save?

AoS is based largely around sidegrades or at least changes that alter the role or preferred target of a unit. Upgrades like banners will always be taken and are folded into the cost. 40k units very often have access to lots of different options of wildly varying effectiveness. GW have simultaneously retained most of those options while also removing points, which is the absolute stupidest way to deal with the situation.

What's really frustrating with the DC example, is Vanguard Vets now have no options and everything has been consolidated into Heirloom Weapons. But GW put so little effort into this change they didn't even think to apply the same logic to DC and combine the chainswords and power weapons into some generic Death Company close combat weapon.

Arkanaut Company with nothing but pistols is literally the wrong choice every single time. Light Skyhook, skypike, volley pistol, and volleygun are the same cost (because everything is) and is better in every way. There is no trade-off. If you choose the former you're just wrong. There is literally zero reason not to take it, so why is it even an option in the first place?

And again, there are many such units with these sorts of options in Age of Sigmar. The community at-large is perfectly a-okay with this, it's fine, because you're going to be picking the best options any ways. The bad options are for people who are fine with picking bad options.

You could make an aethermatic volley-gun 10 points and a light skyhook 15 points and in 90% of cases people would still pay the points for them because they're vital for the unit's role in-game.

AoS's sidegrades are like when you can pick between a spear or a sword for a unit - an option that's becoming increasingly rare as time goes on as the weapon gets rolled into "spears and swords" with one profile, because people always pick the optimal profile anyways. And even with the minor side-grade differences, there is always an optimal choice. This weapon is 2" range 4+ to hit, 3+ to wound and the other is 1" range, 3+ to hit, and 4+ to wound? Okay, I have easy access to +1 to hit, so spear is always correct. Oh, it's the season where models in base-to-base can fight over each other anyways, the sword is better now. etc etc etc

I sympathize with the people who picked options that were once good and are now bad. That sucks when that happens. But to suggest this new system is impossible to work with is just useless gnashing of teeth. The system works perfectly fine, as long as you work within it. People can make bad choices with their units even within a hyper-modular points system, let's not pretend AoS style/PL style points are uniquely terrible in any way.

So the clueless people are going to choose the clueless options and everyone else is going to choose the auto 'option.' That's why the AoS community claims its' points 'work.' *Golfclap* You really sold the terrible AoS point system to me.

A banner upgrade in a unit that has no trade-offs for being taken is not a choice when it has no downside for taking it--it's free and gives extra bonus. It shouldn't be a choice because the choice is pointless. It should just state the unit has a banner, or give the banner a cost or give it a detriment for taking it, ie that model loses 1 from it's WS, etc. Then the option has a reason for existing.

In 40k, if I want a cheap 40 point throw-away unit that can claim objectives and do other minor tasks in game, I should be able to choose that rather than paying 80 points for the same unit that has all the extra wargear and weapons tacked on to it automatically, regardless of what wargear I put on them. It's ridiculous to claim that I'm going to choose the best options every time--no, I'm not because I don't have the points to do so. That's the point of using points.

WYSIWYG is there so that both players always know which unit has which weapons

problem is there is no way to know which weapons your models actually carry otherwise

the data card has all of them, it makes no difference in the army list and if you model for style, you can switch flamers and melta on the need as no one really knows anyway until you first use it