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.

I will say the problem is extremely frustrating for Baneblades.

"Rip your models apart (or saw through old, ancient, invaluable resin) or else you're missing out on two twin heavy bolters and two lascannons" is not my exciting idea of fun.

 kodos wrote:
but you assume that the collectors know the mathematical best and wort option

No, they don't. That's literally the problem. The people who know the game inside and out don't need accurate points values; they can look at two armies and have a decent idea of how they stack up and make adjustments accordingly.

It's the people who don't extensively analyze stats who benefit the most from decent, representative wargear points costs; a simple acknowledgment that a tank with plasma cannon sponsons is more effective on the table than one without, or that a command squad built out as a lieutenant and four riflemen is less useful than one with every specialist that comes in the kit.

A casual collector who likes assembling their models with all the bells and whistles shouldn't have a tangible and significant advantage over a casual collector who takes a more modest approach, but that's exactly what we're getting.

HH2.0 has enough changes to USRs and profiles that it wouldn't work.

You could use the old codex as a baseline, but you would need to basically completely redesign it.

As for the topic of the thread, I dislike it but with caveats. I actually like set unit sizes, but upgrades should have point costs. There are a few cases in which weapons are clearly side grades like the termagant profile in which case everything being free makes sense. But free venom cannons on warriors does not make sense.

Technically WYSIWYG isn't a thing in 10th, right?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Technically WYSIWYG isn't a thing in 10th, right?

I don't see it mentioned in the core rules or designer commentary.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Technically WYSIWYG isn't a thing in 10th, right?

Frankly, I don't think whether WYSIWYG is a thing or isn't is particularly material to the discussion, because even if you take the approach that every unit is assumed to have all the upgrades regardless of what's actually modeled, the problem is remembering which random model(s) in a squad have the relevant upgrades- and then repeat across your entire army.

 catbarf wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Technically WYSIWYG isn't a thing in 10th, right?

Frankly, I don't think whether WYSIWYG is a thing or isn't is particularly material to the discussion, because even if you take the approach that every unit is assumed to have all the upgrades regardless of what's actually modeled, the problem is remembering which random model(s) in a squad have the relevant upgrades- and then repeat across your entire army.

True, though I really don't want to cut open forge world Baneblades from 3rd/4th (or armorcast from before that) just to add a pair of sponsons... (Nor am I terribly excited about just taking them on either).

Visual clarity is such an important thing in 40k, but that seems to be eroding too, and it's not a good direction.

For Marines there are three different units with Twin Lascannons, visually, and they're all different stat-wise. Razorback, Predator Annihilator and Land Raider. Balance-wise it can be useful to tweak them independently. But for visual communication it's not good, and for reducing bloat it's also not good. Those were all the same weapon system for decades.

Arguably the differentiation is also partly due to not paying for upgrades too. The Lascannon on the Razorback is an upgrade over the Heavy Bolters, while the Land Raider and Annihilator carry them stock.

I'm all for the change. It makes list building easy and lets you actually use the toys your kit comes with instead of banishing them to the bits box.

Incidentally, for those with naked Russes and units not running special weapons, now's the time to use those bits that have piled up over the years.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Visual clarity is such an important thing in 40k, but that seems to be eroding too, and it's not a good direction.

I was wondering could you provide some insight on why you think it's not a good direction?

Personally it doens't bother me much, but I spent a long time away from 40k so the weapons are less ingrained and it doesn't bother me as much.

 catbarf wrote:

 kodos wrote:
but you assume that the collectors know the mathematical best and wort option

No, they don't. That's literally the problem. The people who know the game inside and out don't need accurate points values; they can look at two armies and have a decent idea of how they stack up and make adjustments accordingly.

It's the people who don't extensively analyze stats who benefit the most from decent, representative wargear points costs; a simple acknowledgment that a tank with plasma cannon sponsons is more effective on the table than one without, or that a command squad built out as a lieutenant and four riflemen is less useful than one with every specialist that comes in the kit.

A casual collector who likes assembling their models with all the bells and whistles shouldn't have a tangible and significant advantage over a casual collector who takes a more modest approach, but that's exactly what we're getting.

exactly
which is a reason why I cannot get behind that people still think that such rules have any benefit for the casual player
it is more like that it benefits the competitive player as they have a clear advantage over those who don't do the math

 Canadian 5th wrote:
I'm all for the change. It makes list building easy and lets you actually use the toys your kit comes with instead of banishing them to the bits box.

you still cannot add more heavy weapons, so you just throw different bits into the box
if you like the new system, this is fine, but the reason makes not much sense

Bencyclopedia wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Visual clarity is such an important thing in 40k, but that seems to be eroding too, and it's not a good direction.

I was wondering could you provide some insight on why you think it's not a good direction?

Personally it doens't bother me much, but I spent a long time away from 40k so the weapons are less ingrained and it doesn't bother me as much.

It reduces the overall number of weapons and standardises visual language, basically. Something that looks like a Twin Lascannon behaves like a twin Lascannon, and if you know what a Lascannon does, you know what a Twin Lascannon does. But instead there are three different Twin-Lascannon-looking things, and they all do something slightly different. It's just less visual clarity on the tabletop.

Being able to see a model and know what it does is nice. It's one of the reasons Stratagems and bespoke special rules cause a lot of friction too. These are things that are essentially invisible to the opposing player, but can be extremely potent.
The weapon thing isn't as bad as Strats, but it's in the same category of "invisible factors".

EDIT:
Speaking of invisible differences, the Land Raiders are different speeds. The classic Lascannon loadout has a move of 10", while the Crusader and Redeemer have a move of 12". Huh.

 Insectum7 wrote:


EDIT:
Speaking of invisible differences, the Land Raiders are different speeds. The classic Lascannon loadout has a move of 10", while the Crusader and Redeemer have a move of 12". Huh.

They really must have split up the designers and handed them an alphabetical list with breakpoints between the land raiders and other units.... And then banished each of the designers in a room on a diffrent floor and with strict prohibition to speak to one another.

How else do you reach something like this. And it isn't the only exemple, the Eldar have something similar with fireprisms and another unit.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Bencyclopedia wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Visual clarity is such an important thing in 40k, but that seems to be eroding too, and it's not a good direction.

I was wondering could you provide some insight on why you think it's not a good direction?

Personally it doens't bother me much, but I spent a long time away from 40k so the weapons are less ingrained and it doesn't bother me as much.

It reduces the overall number of weapons and standardises visual language, basically. Something that looks like a Twin Lascannon behaves like a twin Lascannon, and if you know what a Lascannon does, you know what a Twin Lascannon does. But instead there are three different Twin-Lascannon-looking things, and they all do something slightly different. It's just less visual clarity on the tabletop.

Being able to see a model and know what it does is nice. It's one of the reasons Stratagems and bespoke special rules cause a lot of friction too. These are things that are essentially invisible to the opposing player, but can be extremely potent.
The weapon thing isn't as bad as Strats, but it's in the same category of "invisible factors".

EDIT:
Speaking of invisible differences, the Land Raiders are different speeds. The classic Lascannon loadout has a move of 10", while the Crusader and Redeemer have a move of 12". Huh.

To be fair, that's a difference that can actually be justified because the lascannons are much heavier than the other options (also internally) so having lighter weapons systems makes for a faster tank. Things like that however hugely benefit from being written out and not just being hidden on a datasheet because, well, people will just not see it that easily and assume it's all the same.

 Insectum7 wrote:
It reduces the overall number of weapons and standardises visual language, basically. Something that looks like a Twin Lascannon behaves like a twin Lascannon, and if you know what a Lascannon does, you know what a Twin Lascannon does. But instead there are three different Twin-Lascannon-looking things, and they all do something slightly different. It's just less visual clarity on the tabletop.

This was my problem with the 9th Tyranid Codex - as much as I love that book - in that it gave us 14 different versions of Scything Talons for no good reason. Worse, it was massively inconsistent about it, so your Carnifex had "Carnifex Scything Talons", and your Screamer Killer had "Screamer Killer Scything Talons" and your Thornback had... "Carnifex Scything Talons", because of course it fething did! And it wasn't the only example of this.

I'd also say it was pretty obvious there was a good chance this was going to be what 10th options looked like with that final points update.

I mostly like the "free upgrades" - especially when they're rather obviously side-grades instead. They have a number of issues to fix to get there though - even more so than a character pistol that will have next to no impact on 999 out of 1000 games. I'm talking about the Unit level choices - the Exorcist main "gun" - Flamestorm vs Boltstorm Aggressors (which has been imbalanced for a while now) - and so on.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
It reduces the overall number of weapons and standardises visual language, basically. Something that looks like a Twin Lascannon behaves like a twin Lascannon, and if you know what a Lascannon does, you know what a Twin Lascannon does. But instead there are three different Twin-Lascannon-looking things, and they all do something slightly different. It's just less visual clarity on the tabletop.

This was my problem with the 9th Tyranid Codex - as much as I love that book - in that it gave us 14 different versions of Scything Talons for no good reason. Worse, it was massively inconsistent about it, so your Carnifex had "Carnifex Scything Talons", and your Screamer Killer had "Screamer Killer Scything Talons" and your Thornback had... "Carnifex Scything Talons", because of course it fething did! And it wasn't the only example of this.

If they were all identical profiles you have a point, cba to go check if they were though. They need to be different weapons otherwise, but if they want oen to have a smash/sweep and not the other models, or different AP or one have rerolls and one not, only way to do that: different weapons. Otherwise as usual you'd end up with all monster level nids having the exact same AP/damage and only the models S/A profile to separate their ability.

10 Pathfinders with pulse carbines costs 120 points.
10 pathfinders with 7 pulse rifles, 3 rail rifles, a semi-auto grenade launcher, a recon drone, grav drone, or a pulse accelerator drone, and 2 shield/gun drones costs... 120 points. And no, the loss of the pulse carbines doesn't reduce the effectiveness of the pathfinders in their job as an observer unit.

1 Broadside with a heavy rail rifle costs 110 points. It has 2 railgun shots.
1 Broadside with a heavy rail rifle, twin plasma rifle/twin smart missile, weapon support system and 2 shield drones costs 110 points. It has 2 railgun shots, the plasma rifle or SMS shots, ignores any or all hit modifiers to ranged attacks and has +2 wounds.

3 Crisis suits with 1 Burst Cannon each costs a total of 195 points.
3 Crisis suits with 3 burst cannons, Shield gen or weapon support system, and 2 shield drones each costs 195 points. It's only 3x the firepower and a 50% increase in the total wounds (and even more effective wounds in practice if shield generators and saving vs AP-2 or better) of the unit!

1 Hammerhead with Railgun and 2 twin pulse carbines costs 145.
1 Hammerhead with Railgun, 2 accelerator burst cannons or twin SMS (which are better than the pulse carbines in every metric), and 2 seeker missiles costs 145.

So, which of those is the "correct" loadout for the points cost of the unit, where it is supposedly balanced against other equivalently costed units in a similar role and I am not being TFG by taking the piss with all the free wargear that I can take?

Gee, I don't think the system works.

As a Guard player I hate it. I’ve been playing with no sponsons since 3rd edition. Now I’m forced to take every single upgrade or be uncompetitive.

Same with infantry. I hated it in 9th and I hate it now. What’s the point of taking a sniper rifle or a laspistol in an infantry squad when plasma is free? Why take chainswords when I can take powerswords.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Technically WYSIWYG isn't a thing in 10th, right?

Frankly, I don't think whether WYSIWYG is a thing or isn't is particularly material to the discussion, because even if you take the approach that every unit is assumed to have all the upgrades regardless of what's actually modeled, the problem is remembering which random model(s) in a squad have the relevant upgrades- and then repeat across your entire army.

True, though I really don't want to cut open forge world Baneblades from 3rd/4th (or armorcast from before that) just to add a pair of sponsons... (Nor am I terribly excited about just taking them on either).

Ah, but that's a buying modelling opportunity, you see. Just hitch a tenth-cart™ full of sponsons to your baneblade, you can even remove it again once they come to their senses and add points for options that are straight-up additions

Dudeface wrote:
If they were all identical profiles you have a point

Being identical isn't required. They were all Scything Talons, but just one different version after another, and then some that were the same between units and others that weren't.

previous versions had the issue of units pay for weapons, sometimes, where a weapon was only on one model it often had a zero point cost and the cost was in the unit.

which worked, until it didn't - e.g. Ork Lootas, where they all pay for the guns, including the mek, who doesn't have one, but instead has to pay for something else

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
10 Pathfinders with pulse carbines costs 120 points.
10 pathfinders with 7 pulse rifles, 3 rail rifles, a semi-auto grenade launcher, a recon drone, grav drone, or a pulse accelerator drone, and 2 shield/gun drones costs... 120 points. And no, the loss of the pulse carbines doesn't reduce the effectiveness of the pathfinders in their job as an observer unit.

1 Broadside with a heavy rail rifle costs 110 points. It has 2 railgun shots.
1 Broadside with a heavy rail rifle, twin plasma rifle/twin smart missile, weapon support system and 2 shield drones costs 110 points. It has 2 railgun shots, the plasma rifle or SMS shots, ignores any or all hit modifiers to ranged attacks and has +2 wounds.

3 Crisis suits with 1 Burst Cannon each costs a total of 195 points.
3 Crisis suits with 3 burst cannons, Shield gen or weapon support system, and 2 shield drones each costs 195 points. It's only 3x the firepower and a 50% increase in the total wounds (and even more effective wounds in practice if shield generators and saving vs AP-2 or better) of the unit!

1 Hammerhead with Railgun and 2 twin pulse carbines costs 145.
1 Hammerhead with Railgun, 2 accelerator burst cannons or twin SMS (which are better than the pulse carbines in every metric), and 2 seeker missiles costs 145.

So, which of those is the "correct" loadout for the points cost of the unit, where it is supposedly balanced against other equivalently costed units in a similar role and I am not being TFG by taking the piss with all the free wargear that I can take?

Gee, I don't think the system works.

No, clearly you are wrong and anti fun if you don't think this system will work. Just don't be a WAAC /S

FWIW, i have an inkling that in the inevitable 11th edition we will see completly fixed loadouts to avoid above. Or a complete return to the older system, because GW gonna GW.

GW could have made a Datacard for each loadout and than make it cost different points

but maybe than Xenos would had more units than Marines and this was not allowed
in a game were Marines have a Datacard for the very same unit but with different weapons, not doing the same for all factions is just lazy so I guess we will see this things when the Codex hits
like Marines have it because their Codex is done and it was not seen as necessary to do the same for those armies further away

to add to the problem, we have seen in 7th how free upgrades works out for GW when at one step not only weapon options are free but Transporters as well

Not Online!!! wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Gee, I don't think the system works.

No, clearly you are wrong and anti fun if you don't think this system will work. Just don't be a WAAC /S.

to add the relevant quote:

 stonehorse wrote:
Yes points where always badly handled, making weapon options different in how they operate with the points baked into the unit is a much better way to do it.

It also means the game is more about fun and not micro adjustments to squeeze out the most optimal peak performance from every single point... you know, the tournament mindset that has been making the game a bit dull.

This is a return to fun, and for people to be able to build their models how they like without having to worry about whether that configuration would mean the unit/model puts their force over the points limit.

 kodos wrote:
GW could have made a Datacard for each loadout and than make it cost different points

A while back I calculated how many possible different gun combinations there were for crisis suits from just the bits available in the Crisis Suit box, so ignoring giving them CIBs or Frags from the commander kit. There were 35 unique loadouts just from their own box.

If you want to test the maths yourself, you get 3 of each weapon in the kit (plasma rifles, fusion blasters, burst cannons, missile pods, flamers). Each Crisis suit can have 3 weapons in any combination (3 of a kind, 2 same 1 different, all 3 different).

they don't need to make each possible combiantion, but just 3 classic loadouts and it would have been much better than this

 kodos wrote:
they don't need to make each possible combiantion, but just 3 classic loadouts and it would have been much better than this

Define classic loadout. These units were never like Space Marines where had your bolter boys and a couple specials. They have always, since their very first iteration, been designed around true versatility and customisability. You get the blank crisis suit and put what guns and support systems you want on it. That design space has not changed at all since 3rd edition, nor should it.

Back in 3rd and 4th you had missile pod and plasma rifle or plasma rifle and fusion blaster as the common picks, due to restrictions on taking multiple of the same gun and needing the 3rd hardpoint for a multi-tracker to enable shooting with multiple weapons. But from 6th onwards (Tau didn't get a codex in 5th) it opened up and we started with the triple gun suits, or 2/1 as we no longer needed the hard point to shoot with multiple weapons. So, out of the 7 editions that Tau have existed as an army, they have had the most lax suit equipment rules in 4 of them. Out of their codices, 5 out of 7 have followed that lax equipment restriction.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 kodos wrote:
they don't need to make each possible combiantion, but just 3 classic loadouts and it would have been much better than this

Define classic loadout.

I think it is the Plasma+Missile (Sunknife?), Fusion+Flamer (Sunforge?), Burst+Plasma (Brightwind?), and 2xMissile (Deathwind?). I might remember the names wrong, but IIRC they are sun-sun-wind-wind.

 AtoMaki wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 kodos wrote:
they don't need to make each possible combiantion, but just 3 classic loadouts and it would have been much better than this

Define classic loadout.

I think it is the Plasma+Missile (Sunknife?), Fusion+Flamer (Sunforge?), Burst+Plasma (Brightwind?), and 2xMissile (Deathwind?). I might remember the names wrong, but IIRC they are sun-sun-wind-wind.

Plasma and Missile was Fireknife.

Those loadouts only existed from 3rd until the Tau codex of 6th removed the restrictions on taking multiple of the same gun, allowed to shoot with multiple guns without needing a support system to do so, and allowed shooting with up to 3 guns.

So, the vast, vast number of Tau players likely never played with those suit loadouts as they were only the go to loadouts due to the restrictions that existed in the 3rd and 4th edition codices.

That hardly will scream "classic" to all those Tau players who joined from 6th edition onwards. The suits that you listed were used for 3 editions (3rd, 4th, 5th), and 2 out of the now 7 Tau codices.

But by all means bring back the weapon restrictions of 4th edition, if you also give me back the armoury options of 4th, and the ability to JSJ on all my jetpack units without needing to use a stratagem.

back in the days Landspeeder hat 3 weapons to chose from in any combination and 1 weapon as add-on

you could run flamer/melta/bolter+flamer/melta/bolter or flamer/melta/bolter+rocket launcher/assault cannon

now we have a Datacard for Bolter/Melter+Melta
one for Bolter+assault cannon or melta+assault cannon or melta+flamer
and one for bolter+rocket launcher or melta+rocket launcher

players are not happy with any option, having only 1 and paying points for weapons not taken, or having multiple cards with fixed loadouts