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.

Dai wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:
Consolidate weapons commonly used by troops.

Expand the wargear options available for leaders.

Agree with this.

Dont need a datasheet for every model either. Just have a Space Marine Captain (for example) sheet and a long list of options like they used to. Brings the yourdudes fun back into the game

If you want an option that needs to be converted and dont want to convert, proxy or tough I guess if your opponent is to highly strung for that.

I'm mostly on board with this as well. Like, with the the captain you could make one, at max three datasheets. Captain, Terminator Captain, Bike Captain.

Captain gets access to the slate of options: Boltgun, Heavy boltgun, bolt-carbine, storm bolter, Combi-weapons, bolt-pistol, plas-pistol, grav-pistol, Power Weapons, Power-fist, Lighting Claw, Storm Shield, Relic Blade, Chainsword, Thunder Hammer, Jump Pack, artificer armor. In addition, you can give them a Primaris Upgrade, which locks them out of the Jump Pack and artificer armor, but allows them to get into the Gravis/Phobos Armors, which gives/grants access to the extra gear associated with those armors. Rinse-Repeat with Terminator and Biker and their wargear.

For characters, make Primaris an upgrade option and erase the excess datasheets, and would allow a simple, elegant solution to bring back Legends sheets like Biker characters and terminator characters.

I'm open to a healthy, modest amount of consolidation, but there's no need to go crazy with it.

As has been pointed out above, this is *mostly* a marine problem. Imperials/humans as a whole have the issue to a lesser extent. There are some xenos weapons that overlap/struggle to find a niche, but not to the extent that it's a problem in need of fixing.

So yeah, you can reasonably lump storm/combi/twin-linked bolters together into a single datasheet. You can probably make tkhe plasma cutter a plasma pistol again for simplicity's sake. You can probably do a once-over of some of the "like that other gun, but better!" profiles and remove the ones that don't meaningfully impact the game.

But that said, we don't need to go overboard with it. My invictus warsuits have a choice between sword and mace profiles, and each one makes the model function in a meaningfully different way. Dire Avenger shuriken catapults being different from normal shuriken catapults helps give the avengers a reason to exist. Splinter carbines have a lot of overlap with splinter rifles, but you do feel the difference when using scourges/sslyth.

Also, I know that the various intercessor guns are kind of the obvious example of unnecessary weapon distinctions, but I'm kind of torn on those. The differences between the weapons are distinctive enough to change up how the unit carrying them plays. Are you rushing forward to get in range with Assault 3, holding still to avoid the penalties of Heavy 1 D2, or are you using the rapid fire profile that lets you trade-off movement for shots at range while still giving you the ability to fire two shots after moving? Maybe distinctions like this would be better represented as part of an army's chapter tactics or commander orders? Let Raven Guard/Raptors hold still to shoot their bolters like sniper rifles while a more aggressive chapter might have the option of unleashing a full auto Assault 3 volley.

iirc, relic blades used to have the trade-off of being two-handed. So you were opting to give up a storm shield or the bonus attack from wieldign a second melee weapon in exchange for a better-than-power-sword profile. The relic blade also had more of a niche when AV was a thing as the strength boost meant you were significantly more of a threat to vehicles than a power sword wielder while also not go so far as to have the drawbacks of a power fist.

Similarly, grav just kind of struggles to have an identity in the current AP system. Their whole gimmick when they were introduced was tied to the AP system, making them more reliable the heavier the target's armor was. Plus they could reliably slow down vehicles. Now they're in a sort of awkward position where they're basically an anti-heavy-infantry weapon, which means they're more directly comparable to plasma than they used to be. So grav is less an exampmle of "too many bolter types" and more an example of a gimmick ceasing to make sense following a core rules change.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Because it's fun I'll repost the weapons reference from the 4th ed Marine codex. #ILoveYou4thEd



To be totally fair, not every weapon is on that list. The Cyclone Missile Launcher and the Hurricane Bolter are missing. That might be it, though. . .

Yes, the 40k weapons need to be consolidated as one of several steps to reduce the bloat. I share the love of 4th edition, and there was even a time, at the beginning of 3rd edition, when pretty much all the weapons in the game (across all factions) could fit on one page; and the game worked!. There is no need for 40+ variations of a bolter.

How about considering that marines have such a big fan base and are so important to do, the experimentation does not start with them. Let the marine factions get their usual faction books, and then limit everyone else in their gear. And if it works well, it then can be implemented for marines in 12-18 months.

As a counterpoint to the 3rd consolidation, there was a bit of an outcry over the list of things that just counted as an additional hand weapon.

2nd was a complicated system, with everything having special rules and features. Which was fine when your army was like 2 squads and a tank. In an effort to simplify 3rd cut a LOT of flavor. Probably too much

It’s a fine line to walk.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I think Grav Pistols/Guns have a reason to exist outside of Plasma Pistols/Guns. They just sorta suck right now.

Heavy disagree. Grav Weapons are silly and really don't need to exist as a separate thing. What's wrong with just using them as different looking Plasma Guns and Cannons?

Maybe its just me, but I just see the gun as a second-stat line. So the fact a given Primaris unit has "Bolter version XXIV" doesn't really bother me. You just learn it as part of the unit.

I mean would it make things dramatically better if say Infiltrator Marksman Bolt Carbines were swapped for basic bolters, and Infiltrators just got "when this unit shoots, 6s to hit auto-wound" as a special rule? Ditto for say Incusors and their special guns ignoring cover? It would represent a very modest boost to say shooting a pistol or throwing a grenade - but such is surely marginal at best.

So to my mind the real argument would be a full on cull. Clearly some people like older editions. Where a lot of units are essentially equipped with glorified bolters or lasguns - and have few or no special rules to distinguish them.

But I think some of the flavour would be sucked out. Even if I think the "rules stack" of
Unit special rules
Weapon special rules
Faction special rules
Sub Faction special rules
Faction Purity Bonus special rules
Character buffs/Psychic Powers/WLT/Relics/Strategems

is far too high.

(Melee on none Elite (Troops) should be Close Combat Weapon. S:U AP0, D1.

All Troop weapons should be Ranged Weapon
S4 AP1 D1

Elites should get access to the special stuff. Done. Just eliminated 90% of the stupidity in Space Marine: The bloat wars.

 vict0988 wrote:
Are relic blades described as being more deadly than power weapons in the fluff

I don't know if this was a serious question or not since Relic Blades have been around since 5th

Tyel wrote:
I mean would it make things dramatically better if say Infiltrator Marksman Bolt Carbines were swapped for basic bolters, and Infiltrators just got "when this unit shoots, 6s to hit auto-wound" as a special rule?

But why do they need a special rule to represent their gun? Why can't they just be tactical marines with the Infiltrate USR? Or why do they even need to exist when we already had scouts? Why can't they just be an alternative aesthetic choice for a tactical squad?

Clearly some people like older editions. Where a lot of units are essentially equipped with glorified bolters or lasguns - and have few or no special rules to distinguish them.

Exactly. Units should have special rules, preferably USRs wherever possible, when the rule is necessary for them to accomplish their intended role. They should not have special rules just to make them 3% more efficient against a particular target and justify the datasheet bloat. The game should be about on-table decisions, not making a giant spreadsheet to determine if 6s to hit auto-wounding is better or worse than AP -1 and 6" more range.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I think Grav Pistols/Guns have a reason to exist outside of Plasma Pistols/Guns. They just sorta suck right now.

Heavy disagree. Grav Weapons are silly and really don't need to exist as a separate thing. What's wrong with just using them as different looking Plasma Guns and Cannons?

The ability to have different rules, and in case of lets say plasma being bad, potentialy grav being good or vice versa.

But why do they need a special rule to represent their gun? Why can't they just be tactical marines with the Infiltrate USR? Or why do they even need to exist when we already had scouts? Why can't they just be an alternative aesthetic choice for a tactical squad?

Because in a world where basic bolters are bad weapons, when they cost 20+pts per model, they have to either have special rules. And scouts being in elite makes them a dead unit. how often did you see scouts being played in 9th? not much. In 8th they were run, because marine stuff was generaly not worth taking, aside for characters, so scouts, who at the time were troops, became the cheapest tax unit a space marine player could take to optimise their list.

And the last question is just odd, what about people who don't paint their models or armies that don't have tacticals like Space Wolves, but would run incursors, because of their special rules, and to a much lesser degree special weapons.

Karol wrote:
The ability to have different rules, and in case of lets say plasma being bad, potentialy grav being good or vice versa.

Or because GW is trying to make two different weapons fill a single role they make both of them bad and you would have been better off with a single well-designed option.

Because in a world where basic bolters are bad weapons, when they cost 20+pts per model, they have to either have special rules. And scouts being in elite makes them a dead unit. how often did you see scouts being played in 9th? not much. In 8th they were run, because marine stuff was generaly not worth taking, aside for characters, so scouts, who at the time were troops, became the cheapest tax unit a space marine player could take to optimise their list.

I get that you play some warped version of 40k in the post-apocalyptic wasteland of fantasy Poland but can we acknowledge the possibility that if GW makes changes to simplify the game they will also be capable of taking care of minor details like assigning an appropriate point cost? Nobody is arguing that they could stay at 20+ ppm just because that's what they currently are.

And the last question is just odd, what about people who don't paint their models

They don't get to play. Painting is not optional.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
(Melee on none Elite (Troops) should be Close Combat Weapon. S:U AP0, D1.

All Troop weapons should be Ranged Weapon
S4 AP1 D1

Elites should get access to the special stuff. Done. Just eliminated 90% of the stupidity in Space Marine: The bloat wars.

More like killed all character from different chapters. And how would different stuff be run under such a system. Marine terminators are elite, so I assume their weapons would be "better", but GK terminators are troops, so they would be runnig with 35+pts bolters? Meanwhile other factions would be running with the same kind of weapons, but at a fraction of the cost. 5 GK termintors shoting 5 bolter shots for 175, would be facing something like grots or IG firing at them with indentical weapons, only 7-8 of them would cost as much as a single termintor. What incentive would there be to ever run non elite marine units anyway? the point cost between elite and non elite options is not that big. why ever run regular intercessors, if veteran intercessors practicaly are the same only with better guns and weapon options at fraction of the points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Or because GW is trying to make two different weapons fill a single role they make both of them bad and you would have been better off with a single well-designed option.

Only the whole idea hinges on one thing. That the design of the simplified rules is going to be good. You know when GW simplified rules for marines? In 9th. Gutted the PA stuff, streamlined everything to a point where there was very few things worth taking, aside for the non regular marine stuff eg. Sang Guards, DCs, DW termis, RW bikes etc. The state was a thing up until the doctrines being reverted to kind of how they worked in the past. And they still don't work that well for the weaker chapters. It is just buffed armies that were already okey or good, even more. So no replacing multiple options with one option is not good. If MM, lascanons and RL get replaced with one statline for anti tank. And the anti tank weapon is bad, then suddenly marines have no long range anti tank.

I get that you play some warped version of 40k in the post-apocalyptic wasteland of fantasy Poland but can we acknowledge the possibility that if GW makes changes to simplify the game they will also be capable of taking care of minor details like assigning an appropriate point cost? Nobody is arguing that they could stay at 20+ ppm just because that's what they currently are.

After two editions and them being unable to balance terminators vs strikes and strikes vs interceptors? No, I don't think they can. I also don't think they care much about it either. Go tell IF players who had to play in 9th ed that GW couldn't properly fix their point costs and faction rules for 3 years.

They don't get to play. Painting is not optional.

It very much is, also telling someone with an unfinished army that they can't play till they are finished with their 2000pts is , how did you call it so nice, a post apocalyptic kind of an action.

And again. If the idea is sound, and is suppose to work then it would be better to test it on something smaller then the biggest group of faction in the game. So we don't end up , the 3ed time. With GW starting with easy streamlined book for marines, only to follow them up with stuff that is very much not streamlined.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I think Grav Pistols/Guns have a reason to exist outside of Plasma Pistols/Guns. They just sorta suck right now.

Heavy disagree. Grav Weapons are silly and really don't need to exist as a separate thing. What's wrong with just using them as different looking Plasma Guns and Cannons?

They just need an appropriate niche to work, but having a 4th "special" category doesn't break the bank in itself. They really had more of their own niche back in 6-7th, when they rolled the opponent's armor to-wound. If Plasma didn't have the Overcharge option that was introduced in 8th, Grav at 2D would be a more compelling place.

Wow, is it really this bad now?

The word "spam" certainly gets a workout, but this is about the closest thing to the infamous Monty Python skit I've ever seen.

"We've got bolt guns, bolter guns, bolter carbines, bolter muzzle-loaders, cap 'n bolters, bolt-action bolters, lever-action bolters, storm bolters, lightning bolters, hurricane bolters, typhoon bolters, blizzard bolters, fog with a chance of rain bolters, heavy bolters, light bolters, Bren bolters, Ginsu bolters..."

Where does the madness end?

Aecus Decimus wrote:
They don't get to play. Painting is not optional.

Painting is optional.

If you like painting, then paint.
If you don’t, then don’t.
And if you refuse to play unpainted models, either from your end or if your opponent has them… that’s fine. But don’t force others to waste time doing something they don’t enjoy.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:
They don't get to play. Painting is not optional.

Painting is optional.

If you like painting, then paint.
If you don’t, then don’t.
And if you refuse to play unpainted models, either from your end or if your opponent has them… that’s fine. But don’t force others to waste time doing something they don’t enjoy.

Pretty sure from their hobby horses that this is old poster peregrine and just so you know they'll argue this subject for pages and pages and pages.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Painting is optional.

Nope.

But to avoid going in circles over this I'll just leave at this: I don't give one single about people who play with unpainted models, and I certainly don't care about some weird Karol-logic argument that simplifying special rules is somehow unfair to them. I'm not going to bother trying to address his complaint because even if his convoluted chain of reasoning is correct and the proposed rule change permanently destroys the entire hobby for people who use unpainted models I won't shed a single tear over it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
And again. If the idea is sound, and is suppose to work then it would be better to test it on something smaller then the biggest group of faction in the game. So we don't end up , the 3ed time. With GW starting with easy streamlined book for marines, only to follow them up with stuff that is very much not streamlined.

"Let's try simplifying the game but we can't do anything to the faction that makes up 75% of the game" is not a viable plan. To make a change like this you have to change the entire game at once, "testing" it on a minor secondary faction and leaving the rest of the game in its original state accomplishes nothing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:
They just need an appropriate niche to work, but having a 4th "special" category doesn't break the bank in itself. They really had more of their own niche back in 6-7th, when they rolled the opponent's armor to-wound. If Plasma didn't have the Overcharge option that was introduced in 8th, Grav at 2D would be a more compelling place.

I don't think that's really a niche. "Wounding on the target's armor save" effectively translates to an anti-elite weapon which is the same role plasma is supposed to have. And yeah, if you take away overload and make grav D2 vs. plasma at D1 you'd make grav have a role but almost entirely at the expense of making plasma useless because it can't handle its primary target anymore. This then has the consequence of giving non-marine armies a major nerf since their plasma now sucks but they don't have access to grav weapons. It would be far simpler and less likely to cause balance issues if GW just made grav an aesthetic alternative for plasma, alongside volkite weapons for people who like the 30k look.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
As has been pointed out above, this is *mostly* a marine problem. Imperials/humans as a whole have the issue to a lesser extent. There are some xenos weapons that overlap/struggle to find a niche, but not to the extent that it's a problem in need of fixing.

Eh, from a Tyranid perspective there is an absolute gakload of weapons now, and I find it pretty hard to keep straight. More importantly, pretty much every critter has different melee weapons, so I need to look at the datasheet to see what each unit is armed with. There's a lot of role overlap with just different variations on the numbers; Bio-Plasma on Carnifexes and Bio-Plasmic Scream on Screamer-Killers do the same thing, one's just better at it. Scything Talons and Hormagaunt Scything Talons are exactly the same, except the former gets a bonus attack.

Astra Militarum are going down this route now too, with the new artillery and tanks adding more bespoke weapon profiles. It feels like someone at GW decided that different units must have different weapons, rather than using a more limited pool of weapons and differentiating the units that carry them.

 Insectum7 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I think Grav Pistols/Guns have a reason to exist outside of Plasma Pistols/Guns. They just sorta suck right now.

Heavy disagree. Grav Weapons are silly and really don't need to exist as a separate thing. What's wrong with just using them as different looking Plasma Guns and Cannons?

They just need an appropriate niche to work, but having a 4th "special" category doesn't break the bank in itself. They really had more of their own niche back in 6-7th, when they rolled the opponent's armor to-wound. If Plasma didn't have the Overcharge option that was introduced in 8th, Grav at 2D would be a more compelling place.

The niche completely removed Plasma as a consideration for Loyalist Scum though. We can make the excuse of "but what about low armor units" if it weren't for the fact the Guns weren't getting 3 shots for the regular gun and 5 for the cannon. You simply ignored Salvo rules LOL

If you want a niche for the gun it would HAVE to be an Assault 2 weapon. That gives it a reason to be taken over Plasma in cases you like to advance and shoot. Cannon.....I have nothing.

catbarf wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
As has been pointed out above, this is *mostly* a marine problem. Imperials/humans as a whole have the issue to a lesser extent. There are some xenos weapons that overlap/struggle to find a niche, but not to the extent that it's a problem in need of fixing.

Eh, from a Tyranid perspective there is an absolute gakload of weapons now, and I find it pretty hard to keep straight. More importantly, pretty much every critter has different melee weapons, so I need to look at the datasheet to see what each unit is armed with. There's a lot of role overlap with just different variations on the numbers; Bio-Plasma on Carnifexes and Bio-Plasmic Scream on Screamer-Killers do the same thing, one's just better at it. Scything Talons and Hormagaunt Scything Talons are exactly the same, except the former gets a bonus attack.

Astra Militarum are going down this route now too, with the new artillery and tanks adding more bespoke weapon profiles. It feels like someone at GW decided that different units must have different weapons, rather than using a more limited pool of weapons and differentiating the units that carry them.

Yeah, tyranids are definitely the xenos faction that came to mind as having the most overlap, but I'm not knowledgable about the current state of 'nids to comment much. Still, I feel like my point mostly holds true. There isn't a *ton* of overlap in aeldari weapons, and where overlap does exist, it often feels like an intentional choice. Like aspect warrior vs non-aspect warrior versions of weapons. I guess there are some kind of pointless/redundant drukhari weapons, but I'd rather make each of those options interesting/bring back some of the cool 5th edition gear rather than nix them completely; plus some of the redundant gear is sort of kind of partially tied to specific subfactions. Off the top of my head, the tau weapons *mostly* have their own niches with a few exceptions. (Pulse carbines and rifles have been stepping on each others' toes since 5th, and I'm sure you could roll a couple of kroot melee weapons together if you really wanted to.) I can't think of a ton of overlapping 'cron weapons. I feel like orks probably have a few guns that are basically three other guns in a trenchcoat, but ork players don't seem to be bothered about it.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I think Grav Pistols/Guns have a reason to exist outside of Plasma Pistols/Guns. They just sorta suck right now.

Heavy disagree. Grav Weapons are silly and really don't need to exist as a separate thing. What's wrong with just using them as different looking Plasma Guns and Cannons?

They just need an appropriate niche to work, but having a 4th "special" category doesn't break the bank in itself. They really had more of their own niche back in 6-7th, when they rolled the opponent's armor to-wound. If Plasma didn't have the Overcharge option that was introduced in 8th, Grav at 2D would be a more compelling place.

The niche completely removed Plasma as a consideration for Loyalist Scum though. We can make the excuse of "but what about low armor units" if it weren't for the fact the Guns weren't getting 3 shots for the regular gun and 5 for the cannon. You simply ignored Salvo rules LOL

If you want a niche for the gun it would HAVE to be an Assault 2 weapon. That gives it a reason to be taken over Plasma in cases you like to advance and shoot. Cannon.....I have nothing.

I mean, this is getting into Proposed Rules territory, but I feel like the way to make grav relevant again would probably be to do something "gravitic" with it. Maybe make it a a debuff gun that lowers the enemy's Movement and/or strength or something. Maybe give a rule that lets it scale up its offense based on the "size" of the target (going off of keywords probably), although that would risk stepping on melta's toes.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
They just need an appropriate niche to work, but having a 4th "special" category doesn't break the bank in itself. They really had more of their own niche back in 6-7th, when they rolled the opponent's armor to-wound. If Plasma didn't have the Overcharge option that was introduced in 8th, Grav at 2D would be a more compelling place.

I don't think that's really a niche. "Wounding on the target's armor save" effectively translates to an anti-elite weapon which is the same role plasma is supposed to have. And yeah, if you take away overload and make grav D2 vs. plasma at D1 you'd make grav have a role but almost entirely at the expense of making plasma useless because it can't handle its primary target anymore. This then has the consequence of giving non-marine armies a major nerf since their plasma now sucks but they don't have access to grav weapons. It would be far simpler and less likely to cause balance issues if GW just made grav an aesthetic alternative for plasma, alongside volkite weapons for people who like the 30k look.

I'd say it depends on what you do with other variables like range and the like. Plasma has the distinction of being both high strength and high range, so you could leverage that to make it stand out. If Grav lost effectiveness against lighter troops per the armor rule, and had shorter range than Plas, I think there's something there. You make a good point about a reduction in Plas Damage hurting non-Marine Plasma users though, so fair enough.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I think Grav Pistols/Guns have a reason to exist outside of Plasma Pistols/Guns. They just sorta suck right now.

Heavy disagree. Grav Weapons are silly and really don't need to exist as a separate thing. What's wrong with just using them as different looking Plasma Guns and Cannons?

They just need an appropriate niche to work, but having a 4th "special" category doesn't break the bank in itself. They really had more of their own niche back in 6-7th, when they rolled the opponent's armor to-wound. If Plasma didn't have the Overcharge option that was introduced in 8th, Grav at 2D would be a more compelling place.

The niche completely removed Plasma as a consideration for Loyalist Scum though. We can make the excuse of "but what about low armor units" if it weren't for the fact the Guns weren't getting 3 shots for the regular gun and 5 for the cannon. You simply ignored Salvo rules LOL

If you want a niche for the gun it would HAVE to be an Assault 2 weapon. That gives it a reason to be taken over Plasma in cases you like to advance and shoot. Cannon.....I have nothing.

Yeah it was Salvo, but unlike Plasma, because of the wounding mechanics it meant it was a worse weapon than Plasma against lighter troops, which was at least an interesting distinction vs. Plasma, which retained it's lethality across the spectrum. Making it Assault with a reduced range would be fine. The Grav Cannon is very distinctive already, the only issue with it is that it might be to good. It's major weakness is that it is only D1 against units with less than a 3+ save, which actually makes it less ideal against certain units, like Tyranid Warriors, Spawn, Daemons, DE flyers and stuff like that. Which, tbf, can be a pretty hefty downside depending on your opponents.

Anyways, I think there's an opportunity there for the "lesser" Grav weapons, though it's not a hill I'd choose to die on.

Aecus Decimus wrote:


They don't get to play. Painting is not optional.

Unsurprisingly you are flat out wrong. Painting is up to player

tneva82 wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:


They don't get to play. Painting is not optional.

Unsurprisingly you are flat out wrong. Painting is up to player

Wait, really? Your local GW doesn't pay killsquads to wire brushes into your hands and force you to paint your minis at gunpoint? The redshirts here keep telling us that's global policy...

tneva82 wrote:
Unsurprisingly you are flat out wrong. Painting is up to player

Not in any well-run community or event. If you don't have a fully painted army you aren't allowed to play.

But, like I said, this doesn't really have anything to do with the topic here. Only by Karol-logic is simplifying rules somehow a nerf to people who play with unpainted models.

Karol wrote:
How about considering that marines have such a big fan base and are so important to do, the experimentation does not start with them. Let the marine factions get their usual faction books, and then limit everyone else in their gear. And if it works well, it then can be implemented for marines in 12-18 months.

Marines are the faction that most desperately needs this. And, as much as I hate to say this, most things start with marines and spread outwards.

As a semi-related example: Back when AoS launched, the Sigmarines in the launch box had the option to take two different types of melee weapons. IIRC they were Hammers and Axes. Hammers had +1 to wound, Axes had +1 to hit - or maybe they were -1 armor? Whatever. The point is that the weapons were "different" but, when mathed out, they were functionally the same. Regarldess of target type you would get results within a couple of percentage points of the other one, yielding no appreciable difference.

Marines - specifically primaris - have all that and a bag of nasty chips. There is no need for a majority of the Primaris roster to have an entirely unique gun to their data sheet, and then have three entirely unique variations on that gun. Especially when the difference is almost always a mere +1 to something and -1 to something else, with a final option that's +1 +1 at the cost of being heavy (so again, functionally a +1 -1 but you can scrap the -1 if you stand still).

In addition to weapons bloat, there is a dire need to consolidate data sheets. While marines are the most blatant offender - having something like 5+ "captain" data sheets and nearly a dozen "Lieutenant" ones - this problem has infected most other codex' as well.

HH 2.0 has shown us that The Build-your-own-HQ option is perfectly fine still. And it's also a hell of a lot easier to actually use. So please, let's bloody use it.

Why stop at weapons? Why not with datasheets? Everyone gets 5 Datasheets.

Commander
Heavy Troop
Troop
Fast Troop
Tank.

Such streamlining, much wow.

I feel so much of the problem comes from overlapping similar weapons and rules interactions.

There is a knowledge load that GW expects players to have that’s extreme, for a game that they keep trying to simplify.

They are also inconsistent even within a faction. Causing confusion, it all ads up in little ways.

Not to mention mission design and other game design that often can be complex and take a lot of concentration for a game that really doesn’t get that much from its complexity it often is just too tiring for the gameplay it supports.

I think they need to clean up the rules as a whole, it’s really is at times they expect a sideboard to be common without any rules or suggestions for it.
Just pull stuff out of a Shelf as you build to the encounter you have seen.
Which further makes neche weapons a issue of where they can even be used.

 vict0988 wrote:
Calling a plasma pistol an energy pistol makes me cringe, it feels very generic and is my biggest gripe with 40k clones like Grimdark Future. I want the nostalgia of using terms that have been in use forever.

I would expect you get to keep all your names. Pistols - Plasma, Grav, Artificer lasers. Call it what you will, same profile (choice of say 3). The idea is to have clear choices between what pistol you give your sergeant. Bolters - again, what do all the options really give, especially when you have clear winners. And so on. Keep the fluff, simplify the stats.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nevelon wrote:
As a counterpoint to the 3rd consolidation, there was a bit of an outcry over the list of things that just counted as an additional hand weapon.

2nd was a complicated system, with everything having special rules and features.

But, only a handful of stat lines to remember weapon wise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Apple fox wrote:
Not to mention mission design and other game design that often can be complex and take a lot of concentration for a game that really doesn’t get that much from its complexity it often is just too tiring for the gameplay it

I would call it complicated, not complex. The actual tactical choices compared to many games aren't that great. But to get to them it is a complicated thicket of books, cards and rules. (Complicated being the opposite of simple, Complex being the opposite of easy. Chess is the classic example of simple rules, difficult gameplay.) But I guess it is a deliberate choice - not being complex helps with getting players of all ages, being complicated increases their buy in and investment in the game if they can get over the initial hump.

I'll go against the grain a bit. The number of weapon profiles doesn't bother me.

In a game, I only care about the datasheets I have printed out for my army. The fact there's 12 Bolter profiles doesn't matter since my unit only has one, and right there for reference.