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.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Considering the Pts on some units... cough prisms and wraithknight cough i am not certain it's just "overpaying", even tough units with options certainly seem to be looking at that problem.

The more I think about it the more the Eldar problem is just Fate Dice plus their rerolls ( on top of their ability to hide ). The solution probably leans more on those parts than on just points. The WK theoretically took a bunch of nerfs into 10th so dropping it makes some sense - it's just really hard to see and it's also difficult to reconcile how people might come to the conclusion that double cannon isn't the best loadout.

With how easy it is to get cover that thing effectively has a 4++ vs AP3. And with AP reductions that matters quite a bit. Though partially this is where maneuvering comes into play. Getting to a firing angle where you can get a clear shot ( or bringing an ignore cover ability ) will be crucial. I doubt there's enough to make someone consider a shield though so it's a dead upgrade unless they want to go melee.

I clicked on yes, but I'm now leaning towards mixed. I like how easy list-building is now, but I don't like how it seems that the new style is pushing up the price of a number of units. I think that a good compromise would be where the points prices are lowered, with any upgrades that are not free costing five points each.

Eldarsif wrote:And honestly, I do get the feeling a lot of players want the illusion of meaningful choices, but not actually have meaningful choices. Most of the upgrades used to give the illusion of choice, and people felt good about it. They thought that they unlocked some Tessaract vault by pinpointing the optimal loadout and combo, even if thousands of players had netlisted that exact thing themselves, but the illusion was there, and it felt good; almost like a miniature game skinner box.

I've seen this argument a lot lately, that the old system had optimal choices so it wasn't any better, and I think that's bs.

In prior editions I could crunch numbers and figure out the optimal choice, but I wasn't punished as harshly for making a suboptimal choice. Even if the Super Awesome Death Ray was underpriced and a 'must-take', if I didn't like the model I could just not take it and put those points elsewhere. Now the SADR is free so if my model doesn't physically have it, I'm still paying for it via baked-in cost, but I get nothing in return.

I don't want to chase the meta. I just want to plunk down an army with my friends and expect that our armies are on a level playing field. A system where the actual combat power of a 2000pt army could vary wildly because the points don't account for significant force multipliers does not get me that. This was a problem in 7th with formations, it was a problem in 8th/9th with subfactions/relics/strats (or in Crusade, using PL), and now it's a problem with wargear.

I'm sure the game will be much better balanced for people just starting new armies with 10th in mind, and GW can reasonably balance around assuming a unit has all the bells and whistles. But there used to be choice that came from deciding how much to invest in a single unit, or whether an upgrade would actually be useful to how you intend to deploy the unit, and not all of that was stuff you could number-crunch out. Was doubling the cost of Termagants to triple their fire output worthwhile? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Was it worth putting four special weapons on your squad of Scions? Depends on what you were going to do with them. Was giving a Tactical Squad sergeant a thunder hammer worthwhile? That was up to how you employed the squad, and maybe it was worth the points or maybe it wasn't.

But no, now in 10th he has a thunder hammer regardless because there is no real choice. And if the model has a chainsword, you don't even get to say 'well, at least that can buy me a thunder hammer elsewhere' anymore. You get nothing- besides the question of whether you're going to play WYSIWYG anymore.

Eldarsif wrote:Also, I'd argue that the upgrade issue is more of a Space Marine issue than anything else.

I don't play Marines. I play Guard, where it's a massive issue (nearly every unit in my two Guard armies is 'under-strength' now, some to very significant degrees) and Tyranids, where it produces some frustratingly unintuitive unit builds (Tyranid Warriors that carry more heavy weapons than regular weapons, Rippers all have ranged weapons, etc). And that's without even getting into internal balance issues, where some weapons will just never see use because others are strictly better when there's no penalty to taking them.

These are all exactly the same issues people had with power level, and this points system is just power level with a funny mustache. We already know how this is going to play out in practice. The gulf in power between a casual army and a competitive army is going to be worse, not better.

I do wonder how long this free upgrades will last.

Eventually as GW makes balance point changes, they are going to notice some changes are easier with weapon point costs when some particular loadout overperforms.

Its definitely not just a marine issue. It affects dark elfs, squats, orks, admech, guard, even some necron units where you're just an idiot for not going all in (tomb blades, spyders)

Daemons are about the safest from it (greater daemons and soul grinder have some choices)

I don't think the 'if my model doesn't have it then I'm punished' angle works entirely, either.

If you have an old collection then the non-thunderhammer guy goes with the Devastators where the sarge barely ever swings in anger. Also, swinging twice with a TH or PF against 4 times with a Chainsword or 3 times with a power sword makes a usability case for those weapons. But more than likely you designed that squad to do something that wasn't melee oriented and they can still continue to do so and the odd engagement where they're down a thunderhammer is a matter of a small percentage depending on what you're fighting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:
Its definitely not just a marine issue. It affects dark elfs, squats, orks, admech, guard, even some necron units where you're just an idiot for not going all in (tomb blades, spyders)

Daemons are about the safest from it (greater daemons and soul grinder have some choices)

On the Tomb Blade aspect - I would just skip the WYSIWYG aspect for the upgrades that few people know what they look like on the model.

Sure, a lot of the sergeant melee weapons are side-grades or close enough.

But that isn't universally true, and the problems go well beyond sarges.

Skipping WYSIWYG is a bad precedent. I want to know what everyone actually has, not make guesses and run into fights that are much worse than I thought. I've had people do that enough deliberately in the past that I have little tolerance for it.

----
And now its even weirder with the combat patrol rules, where it expects an exact load-out, even if its something that you'd rarely (or never) use in the main game. That's an utterly baffling turn.

I wouldn't skip WYSIWYG entirely. Just for vehicle stuff, mostly. The most egregious issues are with Orks, really. There's lots of wagons without deffrollas and trukks without wrecking balls. Those aren't as simple, but I'm personally fine with just agreeing that the ramshackle vehicle has the capability.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:
And now its even weirder with the combat patrol rules, where it expects an exact load-out, even if its something that you'd rarely (or never) use in the main game. That's an utterly baffling turn.

Oh, yea. I looked at the one for TS and it had bp / chainsword on the Tzaangors. Both loadouts are fine, but I definitely prefer blades. I'd hate for the CP to lead someone to build the models a certain way, but most of them seem equivalent so far. They also had the missile rack on a different model from the heavy weapon, which is fine, but that's a competitive optimization thing that I don't think matters in most games.

Admittedly I have been skipping WYSIWYG with my nids since forever, because a surprisingly few amount of people know the difference between a venom cannon and a barbed strangler, or a devourer and a fleshborer.

Similarly, I have no idea how the different upgrades of a Necron Tomb Blade are supposed to look like.

It is only Marines* and Guard that "suffer" from everybody knowing how their weapons look like.

*Except Grey Knights, no idea how to differentiate bewteen their psy-weapons stuff.

 Tyran wrote:
I do wonder how long this free upgrades will last.

Eventually as GW makes balance point changes, they are going to notice some changes are easier with weapon point costs when some particular loadout overperforms.

My guess is that eventually GW will get a feel that some outliers need points. Which would mean that about less than 5% of the upgrades gets points at best.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


On the Tomb Blade aspect - I would just skip the WYSIWYG aspect for the upgrades that few people know what they look like on the model.

It's actually amazing how many people have zero idea what each upgrade looks like, and that is before we realize that GW has had so many upgrades over the year that don't even have actual models or were never given a baseline look.

Some people are going to be WYSIWYG purists - but if "Combat Patrol" proves a popular way to play, I'm not going to bemoan that people have built their models differently. Especially when the loadouts are clearly nuts from a main game perspective.

I guess you could just not buy anything new for 6 months on the grounds GW may pivot out of free stuff, but I'm not sure they will.

 Tyran wrote:
Admittedly I have been skipping WYSIWYG with my nids since forever, because a surprisingly few amount of people know the difference between a venom cannon and a barbed strangler, or a devourer and a fleshborer.

It's also just annoying for Tyranids to have gazillion options for a horde army. It means that if a weapon changes or there are balance slates you can easily be forced into buying a second version of your army. It's one of the reasons I gave up on my Nids. I just got tired of shelving another Tyranid Warrior because now their loadout was utter garbage.

Then I had a Deathshroud with the super expensive sigil upgrade that no one ever took. In the end I just said "The Sigil means he is the sergeant" and people went with it.

Something I did like is that GW is trying to make weapons sidegrades.

I do believe that unit wide weapon options must be sidegrades when possible, with only individual model weapon upgrades like special and heavy weapons requiring point costs.

 Tyran wrote:

*Except Grey Knights, no idea how to differentiate bewteen their psy-weapons stuff.

What exactly is so difficult about differentiating between three special ranged weapons (the flamer one, the bolter one, the gatling one)?

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I don't think the 'if my model doesn't have it then I'm punished' angle works entirely, either.

If you have an old collection then the non-thunderhammer guy goes with the Devastators where the sarge barely ever swings in anger. Also, swinging twice with a TH or PF against 4 times with a Chainsword or 3 times with a power sword makes a usability case for those weapons. But more than likely you designed that squad to do something that wasn't melee oriented and they can still continue to do so and the odd engagement where they're down a thunderhammer is a matter of a small percentage depending on what you're fighting.

You can reshuffle your army to try to mitigate the fact that your old units are underpowered. That doesn't mean they aren't underpowered.

And sure, some melee weapons are viable as sidegrades. Some aren't. Again, laspistol/bolt pistol vs plasma pistol. I wouldn't complain if those actually were sidegrades, and if not taking sponsons gave you some other kind of bonus, and if Rippers omitting Spinemaws got a benefit elsewhere. But there are so many upgrades that aren't sidegrades, you just get something for nothing.

Ditching WYSIWYG is an option, but WYSIWYG exists to help both players to keep track of what's on the field. My wife has three units of Wracks, and now each unit of 5 models gets 4 special weapons. Even if we give the Wracks the weapons that aren't modeled (because it makes a pretty substantial difference), how do we track which model has which weapon? Colored dots on the bases, I guess?

 Eldarsif wrote:
I honestly believe that anyone who does not like the new unit sizes is not a fan of meaningful choices. When you can't snugly fit what you like MSU style everywhere you are more often than not forced to think what you are going for. It's one of the things I love(as well as frustrates me) in AoS. I can't just take exactly what I want and play around the system. I must commit to a choice and deal with the consequences. I was in an autumn league last autumn and my AoS list changed so much more than my 40k lists. Because if I had to change something in AoS it meant I would have to reorganize my entire army instead of snugly fitting something into an open slot.

Why should list building be a jigsaw puzzle? You can add meaningful choices in all kinds of places where it doesn't fit what the game is trying to do. Like you could have units gain special bonuses depending on what letters the models form.

With my Immortals in X formation they get hyperblasterbooster power instead of the U formation flickersteppingprotocol which lets me get enough range to hit your Guardsmen at range 48".

Is it meaningful? Yeah, but is it a hassle? Also yeah. Finally, does it make a lick of sense? No. Therefore letter formations for units is not a good idea to implement into 40k. Neither is jigsaw list building, good for you if you're able to take jigsaw list building to the next level while us mere mortals just look for synergy and the ability to deal with various enemy lists and occasionally build slightly worse lists because we aren't great jigsaw list builders, but should we really be punished for that? Why should I be encouraged to replace my Lokhust Heavy Destroyers for a unit of Deathmarks and a Hexmark Destroyer to make up the last 40 points instead of just adding a couple of more Immortals to that 5-man Immortal unit I already have? I want to play with Lokhust Heavy Destroyers.

Now, people might say I am harsh, but I have also been playing since 2nd edition and it's always about the optimal choice in each edition, which usually meant barebone squads with the occasional plasma or whatever the math showed was the next best thing.

It has already been explained previously in the thread that blinging units out can be highly encouraged by making them very points-efficient without spitting long-term collectors such as yourself in the eye when they say your barebones units you have after GW told you that's what you were supposed to have for 7 editions is suddenly complete trash.

Yeah, I'm a little concerned by all the "ditching WYSIWYG would never happen but if it did it's not that bad". No, my friends may not know the difference between a barbed strangler and a deathspitter, but *I do*. And like catbarf says, sometimes you will absolutely need to have a little dot or a different base color or something... and I find that things degrade rapidly from there. Most of the solutions that solve the Wrack example are aesthetic nonstarters to me. If I'm having to compromise the aesthetics of the models and the table for gameplay purposes, it means I need to think about another game. That aesthetic of beautifully sculpted and painted models on thematic tables with nicely arranged terrain is maybe the one thing about 40k that has remained consistently brilliant over the decades.

 Tyran wrote:
Something I did like is that GW is trying to make weapons sidegrades.

I do believe that unit wide weapon options must be sidegrades when possible, with only individual model weapon upgrades like special and heavy weapons requiring point costs.

wouldn't that be better acomplished by, i dunno, core mechanics that affect weapon types diffently?

GL? Good against units in buildings and cover, Flamer even more effective against cover and targets morale, Stubbers/ HB surpress potentially, etc...

 catbarf wrote:
Ditching WYSIWYG is an option, but WYSIWYG exists to help both players to keep track of what's on the field. My wife has three units of Wracks, and now each unit of 5 models gets 4 special weapons. Even if we give the Wracks the weapons that aren't modeled (because it makes a pretty substantial difference), how do we track which model has which weapon? Colored dots on the bases, I guess?

I would never ditch it for units with multiple models unless it made sense like Tomb Blades. Wracks would just be as-is.

The Wrack sheet got the crap beat out of it. Their one kindness was letting untethering the upgrades from the Acothyst so you can use him to build a unit if he has upgrades. Stinger Pistol is still a super dud, but I don't it's ever been compelling.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I don't think the 'if my model doesn't have it then I'm punished' angle works entirely, either.

It's definitely the case that there are degrees of "wrongness" with the upgrades being free. A couple of TH on some Tactical Sgts is probably pretty inconsequential (though very possibly isn't given the value of D2) and is even relatively quick and easy to change if you really want to. The real problems lie with units like Death Company, where the standard BP/CS loadout is just wrong. If every model doesn't have at least the plasma pistol and power weapon combo you're losing out on a massive lethality upgrade. Same with LR sponsons, or taking 5-man Deathwatch Killteams. There are simply far too many scenarios where the free upgrades break the balance of the game to excuse it in any way. The situations where you're only slightly missing out on things like Sgt plasma pistols will be massively outweighed by those where your units aren't all equipped with a bunch of previously esoteric options that are now the de facto standard.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
Yeah, I'm a little concerned by all the "ditching WYSIWYG would never happen but if it did it's not that bad". No, my friends may not know the difference between a barbed strangler and a deathspitter, but *I do*. And like catbarf says, sometimes you will absolutely need to have a little dot or a different base color or something... and I find that things degrade rapidly from there. Most of the solutions that solve the Wrack example are aesthetic nonstarters to me. If I'm having to compromise the aesthetics of the models and the table for gameplay purposes, it means I need to think about another game. That aesthetic of beautifully sculpted and painted models on thematic tables with nicely arranged terrain is maybe the one thing about 40k that has remained consistently brilliant over the decades.

If someone shows up and tells me all these Warriors are equipped with Deathspitters then I don't care much if they're actually different models. If they show up with units with different loadouts then it needs to be visually distinct, but it could be a different gun and it wouldn't matter to me. As long as I can understand when a unit is different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slipspace wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I don't think the 'if my model doesn't have it then I'm punished' angle works entirely, either.

It's definitely the case that there are degrees of "wrongness" with the upgrades being free. A couple of TH on some Tactical Sgts is probably pretty inconsequential (though very possibly isn't given the value of D2) and is even relatively quick and easy to change if you really want to. The real problems lie with units like Death Company, where the standard BP/CS loadout is just wrong. If every model doesn't have at least the plasma pistol and power weapon combo you're losing out on a massive lethality upgrade. Same with LR sponsons, or taking 5-man Deathwatch Killteams. There are simply far too many scenarios where the free upgrades break the balance of the game to excuse it in any way. The situations where you're only slightly missing out on things like Sgt plasma pistols will be massively outweighed by those where your units aren't all equipped with a bunch of previously esoteric options that are now the de facto standard.

Death Company forgot to up the chainsword like the other weapons for some reason.

Otherwise if you wanted to tell me everyone in the squad has a plasma pistol I'm personally ok with that. I think plasma has enough of a downside that you won't overcharge much. I get why it would still bug people though.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I wouldn't skip WYSIWYG entirely. Just for vehicle stuff, mostly. The most egregious issues are with Orks, really. There's lots of wagons without deffrollas and trukks without wrecking balls. Those aren't as simple, but I'm personally fine with just agreeing that the ramshackle vehicle has the capability.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:
And now its even weirder with the combat patrol rules, where it expects an exact load-out, even if its something that you'd rarely (or never) use in the main game. That's an utterly baffling turn.

Oh, yea. I looked at the one for TS and it had bp / chainsword on the Tzaangors. Both loadouts are fine, but I definitely prefer blades. I'd hate for the CP to lead someone to build the models a certain way, but most of them seem equivalent so far. They also had the missile rack on a different model from the heavy weapon, which is fine, but that's a competitive optimization thing that I don't think matters in most games.

How would you handle a Baneblade with no sponsons (or one sponson set)?

Currently it is required to take 1 set, and has the option (free) for a second set. The set of sponsons nets you 2 Twin Heavy Bolters and 2 Lascannons, so not taking the sponsons is a significant firepower degrade (and if you say otherwise, I encourage you to put 0 heavy weapons on your devastators, and then take 2 heavy weapons of your next devastator squad also).

Should I just bite the bullet and pay 50-100 pts more than my unit's actual effectiveness? Is WYSIWYG gone? What's the deal?

If someone doesn't have all the sponsons then I'm totally OK with counts as.

Maybe the top table guys will be grumpy, but I imagine someone going for mid to upper tables still has sponsons they can put on. It's been quite common to take them on and off as points fluctuate so I can't envision many people lack that capacity.

 catbarf wrote:


I'm sure the game will be much better balanced for people just starting new armies with 10th in mind, and GW can reasonably balance around assuming a unit has all the bells and whistles. But there used to be choice that came from deciding how much to invest in a single unit, or whether an upgrade would actually be useful to how you intend to deploy the unit, and not all of that was stuff you could number-crunch out. Was doubling the cost of Termagants to triple their fire output worthwhile? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Was it worth putting four special weapons on your squad of Scions? Depends on what you were going to do with them. Was giving a Tactical Squad sergeant a thunder hammer worthwhile? That was up to how you employed the squad, and maybe it was worth the points or maybe it wasn't.

But no, now in 10th he has a thunder hammer regardless because there is no real choice. And if the model has a chainsword, you don't even get to say 'well, at least that can buy me a thunder hammer elsewhere' anymore. You get nothing- besides the question of whether you're going to play WYSIWYG anymore.

So if how I employed a squad before dictated wether or not spending pts on an option was worth it, and it worked to my satisfaction without the option, and I employ the squad the same now & get similar results.... Do I really need to go to the effort of converting my finished model now that the upgrade costs 0?
Nope.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
If someone shows up and tells me all these Warriors are equipped with Deathspitters then I don't care much if they're actually different models. If they show up with units with different loadouts then it needs to be visually distinct, but it could be a different gun and it wouldn't matter to me. As long as I can understand when a unit is different.

Warriors are a perfect example of the problem.

Deathspitters are a basic weapon for the unit. In prior editions, you could viably field a full unit of Warriors with all Deathspitters. Maybe they were actually modeled with Devourers, but you don't know the difference and it isn't an issue. They could take heavy weapons but that cost points so fielding just basic weapons was fine.

In 10th, one in three Warriors can take a Venom Cannon and one in three can take a Barbed Strangler. These are straight upgrades over the Deathspitter, with no downsides, and now they're free- or rather, their cost is rolled into the base cost of the unit, so you're paying for them either way.

So a three-model Warrior squad now actually has one Deathspitter, one Venom Cannon, and one Barbed Strangler, and somehow you need to track that. Or if you just field the unit with what they're modeled as, you're losing out on heavy weapons, and that's a significant reduction in firepower.

There's no clean solution here.

 catbarf wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
If someone shows up and tells me all these Warriors are equipped with Deathspitters then I don't care much if they're actually different models. If they show up with units with different loadouts then it needs to be visually distinct, but it could be a different gun and it wouldn't matter to me. As long as I can understand when a unit is different.

Warriors are a perfect example of the problem.

Deathspitters are a basic weapon for the unit. In prior editions, you could viably field a full unit of Warriors with all Deathspitters. Maybe they were actually modeled with Devourers, but you don't know the difference and it isn't an issue. They could take heavy weapons but that cost points so fielding just basic weapons was fine.

In 10th, one in three Warriors can take a Venom Cannon and one in three can take a Barbed Strangler. These are straight upgrades over the Deathspitter, with no downsides, and now they're free.

So a three-model Warrior squad now actually has one Deathspitter, one Venom Cannon, and one Barbed Strangler, and somehow you need to track that. Or if you just field the unit with what they're modeled as, you're losing out on heavy weapons, and that's a significant reduction in firepower.

There's no clean solution here.

Oh there is a clean solution. WYSIWYG. You want your non-basic options? Go buy some bitz.

ccs wrote:
So if how I employed a squad before dictated wether or not spending pts on an option was worth it, and it worked to my satisfaction without the option, and I employ the squad the same now & get similar results.... Do I really need to go to the effort of converting my finished model now that the upgrade costs 0?

ccs wrote:
Oh there is a clean solution. WYSIWYG. You want your non-basic options? Go buy some bitz.

GW could implement AOS1.0's 'field as many models as you like' army-building and I bet you'd defend it. 'I can still field my army just like before, so what's the big deal? If it bothers you, go buy more kits'.

ccs wrote:

Oh there is a clean solution. WYSIWYG. You want your non-basic options? Go buy some bitz.

The easier, cleaner solution is that upgrades cost points.

 catbarf wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
If someone shows up and tells me all these Warriors are equipped with Deathspitters then I don't care much if they're actually different models. If they show up with units with different loadouts then it needs to be visually distinct, but it could be a different gun and it wouldn't matter to me. As long as I can understand when a unit is different.

Warriors are a perfect example of the problem.

Deathspitters are a basic weapon for the unit. In prior editions, you could viably field a full unit of Warriors with all Deathspitters. Maybe they were actually modeled with Devourers, but you don't know the difference and it isn't an issue. They could take heavy weapons but that cost points so fielding just basic weapons was fine.

In 10th, one in three Warriors can take a Venom Cannon and one in three can take a Barbed Strangler. These are straight upgrades over the Deathspitter, with no downsides, and now they're free- or rather, their cost is rolled into the base cost of the unit, so you're paying for them either way.

So a three-model Warrior squad now actually has one Deathspitter, one Venom Cannon, and one Barbed Strangler, and somehow you need to track that. Or if you just field the unit with what they're modeled as, you're losing out on heavy weapons, and that's a significant reduction in firepower.

There's no clean solution here.

Warriors also serve as an example of different GW trends and where they work and where they don't (and where GW clearly struggled).

Deathspitters vs Devourers? clear sidegrades so both being free causes no issue. Each one has a preferred type of target.

Venom cannons and Barbed stranglers? blatant upgrades and should cost points.

And then there is the consolidated melee weapons and while ugly, it is the minor devil compared to no point costs (it is pretty much impossible to make boneswords sidegrades to scything talons and rending claws. I know I have tried).

Daedalus81 wrote:If someone doesn't have all the sponsons then I'm totally OK with counts as.

Maybe the top table guys will be grumpy, but I imagine someone going for mid to upper tables still has sponsons they can put on. It's been quite common to take them on and off as points fluctuate so I can't envision many people lack that capacity.

Daedalus81 wrote:If someone doesn't have all the sponsons then I'm totally OK with counts as.

Maybe the top table guys will be grumpy, but I imagine someone going for mid to upper tables still has sponsons they can put on. It's been quite common to take them on and off as points fluctuate so I can't envision many people lack that capacity.

That's just the thing, though:
1) I do lack the capacity for certain units. Many of mine are the old Forge World Resin ones (including all of my Shadowswords, that don't even have the lascannon turrets because they have the Arkurion-pattern targeters); the ones that aren't were purchased well before the current box, when the Shadowsword and Baneblade boxes were split and they only came with one sponson each.

2) I don't want to:
- Spend more money to buy sponson upgrade sprues from GW or eBay or whatever
- Tear apart my beautifully painted and decaled superheavy tanks, each with a storied history, to slap more sponsons on and then fix the paint.

Why didn't I magnetize, you ask? Because consistency. Stormsword 14 Aggressor has all four sponsons, as the Company Commander for 4th Company, but Stormsword 24 Akilla and Stormsword 34 Honorum have one sponson set each. That's the fact of those tanks. Back in the day, this made them cheaper; a "consolation" prize in some editions, or genuinely the best choice in others. Either way, it was fine that Aggressor was XYZ points more expensive than Akilla or Honorum, and it was okay that they were cheaper, because at the very least if it wasn't the best choice, it at least wasn't the worst, either.

But now? Its' just the worst. Period. No reason whatsoever.