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.

the comparison of how combi weapons are written in the box and the index is not about that one or the other is wrong or that there are typos

it is about that GW had the rules for them but changed their mind about it and merged it into 1 profile

the legit comparison of the Tyranid part is not the maybe typos from the stats but just the markers on the Neurotyrant

Wild how little consistency there has been so far. This just reinforces how much GW leans on the community to balance their product.. after the releases.

I know some players enjoy being part of that sort of thing but I haven't for at least a few editions. I find much less stress if I just lag behind until someone else sorts it out.

It's almost like buying an IPO these days. You wanna straight up gamble GL. I'll wait until I see an entry point.

dominuschao wrote:
Wild how little consistency there has been so far. This just reinforces how much GW leans on the community to balance their product.. after the releases.

as I learned today from the people here, GW is a miniature company and not a gaming company, making a game is not their job and we should not expect them to write rules with the same quality as a gaming company would do.....

dominuschao wrote:
Wild how little consistency there has been so far. This just reinforces how much GW leans on the community to balance their product.. after the releases.

I know some players enjoy being part of that sort of thing but I haven't for at least a few editions. I find much less stress if I just lag behind until someone else sorts it out.

It's almost like buying an IPO these days. You wanna straight up gamble GL. I'll wait until I see an entry point.

Not defending them, but it might have something to do with insane container lead times nowadays. Stuff from China takes 6 months of just shipping nowadays, which is 1/6th of their 3-year-window between editions right there, and this is a (relatively) recent development, before Corona it was more like 2 months. It's not impossible that the instruction booklets are sourced in a totally different process than e.g. books, and need to be locked in months before printed products, and these (of course) again months before digital stuff. They still have dumb as hell processes in place if that is the case - it's an explanation, not a justification.

Could it be that these different profiles are meant for the Combat Patrol game mode? I recall something about units having different rules in that one. Although, it could also be last-minute changes or a series of mistakes. Those are also pretty likely with GW.

dominuschao wrote:
Hope not. And fully balanced side grades is also not something I have any interest in. Because it's not possible without homogenizing them to a point they hold no interest to me.

I think it's more possible with the expanded toughness brackets, but all the chaotic issues need to settle before we understand what games really look like.

Dudeface wrote:
I offered an example to back up your observation that the build instructions are wrong in comparison to the index cards.

Was that required? I mean, they're obviously different. I was highlighting said difference, and doing so in relation to the topic. What were you attempting to highlight, precisely?

Dudeface wrote:
You're the one aggressively questioning what I'm posting...

Because it sure looked like an attempt at "Yeah well they're all wrong anyway, so let's ignore everything you just said!".

Dudeface wrote:
... you have made your stance on combi-weapons widely known at every opportunity...

I wasn't re-presenting my stance on combi-weapons. The post wasn't even about combi-weapons! It was about using the rules that already exist in the game - in this instance the weapon abilities - to differentiate weapons in their role in an effort to create a system where all of them are useful, rather than some being specific and one generalist weapon being taken most of the time. It was more about special weapons - y'know, one of the things we're discussing in this topic - than just combi-weapons; combi-weapons were the example given that I found different rules for them that really highlight what they could do if given half a chance and how that could apply to special weapons so that they are side-grades to one another, and not mostly redundant in the face of one generalist weapon.

How did you miss that?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
I offered an example to back up your observation that the build instructions are wrong in comparison to the index cards.

Was that required? I mean, they're obviously different. I was highlighting said difference, and doing so in relation to the topic. What were you attempting to highlight, precisely?

Dudeface wrote:
You're the one aggressively questioning what I'm posting...

Because it sure looked like an attempt at "Yeah well they're all wrong anyway, so let's ignore everything you just said!".

Dudeface wrote:
... you have made your stance on combi-weapons widely known at every opportunity...

I wasn't re-presenting my stance on combi-weapons. The post wasn't even about combi-weapons! It was about using the rules that already exist in the game - in this instance the weapon abilities - to differentiate weapons in their role in an effort to create a system where all of them are useful, rather than some being specific and one generalist weapon being taken most of the time. It was more about special weapons - y'know, one of the things we're discussing in this topic - than just combi-weapons; combi-weapons were the example given that I found different rules for them that really highlight what they could do if given half a chance and how that could apply to special weapons so that they are side-grades to one another, and not mostly redundant in the face of one generalist weapon.

How did you miss that?

Whilst that was the context of the opening and closing of your post, you used a general complaint about GW's consolidation of combi-weapons as your jumping point:

H.B.M.C. wrote:
We know that when GW engaged their hyper-incredible levels of imagination it resulted in generic Combi-Weapons... except it didn't in these 'simple' rules.

The Combi-Flamer, Plasma and Melta are all distinct. Yes, they're all S4 AP-1 D1 with Devastating wounds (and the Lt. hits on 2+, but he's a character so ignore that), but they have further things that define them:

1. The Combi-Flamer has Ignores Cover.
2. The Combi-Plasma has Anti-Monster 4+ and Hazardous.
3. The Combi-Melta has Anti-Vehicle 4+ and Melta 2.

Apologies that it maybe looks like I falsely assumed it was a pretence to continue to complain about the current combi-weapon via a "look what it could have been", that isn't the case as you did manage to expand the scope and even take a random stab at a topic I was involved in discussing earlier:

Now I'm just talking about special weapons here. This does not strictly apply to heavy weapons (I don't think we can call a Lascannon a "side grade" to a Heavy Bolter)

From here and your inclusion of a breakdown detailing the inconsistencies in GW design we got:

kodos wrote:
question now is that this change prior or after the cards
the pdf look like to be just the stuff that went to the printer for the cards that were sold

so either we have again 2 people working on rules not talking to each other, or it was decided to change one for the other which could mean we get that rules back with the Codex

just imagine Melta being anti-vehicle 4+ with the Codices meaning only Index faction having that problem

Which is largely related to the instructions and how different they are, so I gave Kodos more info:

Dudeface wrote:

The stats in the instructions differ wildly from those on the cards in some places. It's either the manual stats were from well before the current rules were decided or they're a preview into the codex. Given the difference I'd wager the former.

Dudeface wrote:I'll pop them on here for reference:

So at this point I've only tried to be helpful and provide more info to the topic that was being talked about: how far removed the stats are and when they happened with a little evidence for people who were curious.

H.B.M.C. wrote:We seem to be drifting somewhat from the point I was making. Not even sure why Dudeface posted Tyranid stats when I was talking about the Primaris Lt/Sternguard stats being different.

Then you go all drama queen suddenly because people weren't talking about combi-weapons.

Except the point wasn't about combi-weapons. How do you keep missing this? But, y'know, whatever...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Except the point wasn't about combi-weapons. How do you keep missing this? But, y'know, whatever...

So...

We seem to be drifting somewhat from the point I was making. Not even sure why Dudeface posted Tyranid stats when I was talking about the Primaris Lt/Sternguard stats being different.

What about them is different you wanted to draw attention to exactly?

I don't want to argue, if you want to talk about the different weapon profiles for different purposes being an appropriate concept feel free, I'll leave you to it.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Except the point wasn't about combi-weapons. How do you keep missing this? But, y'know, whatever...

Sorry bruv, I can't see that tree. Someone's gone a put a forest in the way...

Just out of interest, how many people who aren't keen on aspects of the new edition have put that down in writing and emailed GW about it?

I still have let to see a good argument for wargear/weapons points being removed.

The only one people keep coming back to is “it’s easier” which isn’t a good argument in my eyes. I don’t know anyone, even children new to the hobby, that struggled with basic calculator addition before.

 Nazrak wrote:
Just out of interest, how many people who aren't keen on aspects of the new edition have put that down in writing and emailed GW about it?

I do every time.

It's got a little lost but I wanted to comment on the point about finding the right costs for special weapons. Because, barring maybe the melta, 8th edition actually settled on a lot of really good point costs for weapons.

Let me use the example of my Imperial Guard. I like to run infantry heavy lists, and I'd usually plan to set up said infantry in waves - a frontline, a middle-line, and a backline. Then, of course, you'd have officers, HWTs, maybe the odd command squad or such sprinkled around.

Anyway, the frontline infantry would have flamers and plasma pistols. These were both relatively cheap and helped with the squad's role of closing with the enemy and/or absorbing charges. The flamers were useful in that second role thanks to overwatch. They weren't amazing weapons by any means, but they cost only 5pts.

The middle-line infantry would have plasma pistols and plasmaguns. These guys would follow behind the second wave and try to do more concentrated damage. They would still aim to get within 12", so the plasma pistols made sense. However, plasmaguns also give them more versatility against heavier infantry and monsters.

The backline would have plasmaguns and lascannons or missile launchers. These guys would generally stay behind. Their aim would be to guard home objectives (if any) and provide long-range fire support.

HWTs were more vulnerable than infantry squads, so they had cheaper weapons - usually a couple of Heavy Bolters and an Autocannon. As with the backline infantry, they'd provide fire support for as long as they lasted.

Veterans had to pay twice as much for a plasmagun as guardsmen but only 3pts each for Grenade Launchers. Thus, that's what they'd be outfitted with. Especially given their vulnerability.

Commanders had a mix of weapons. I liked having different melee and ranged weapons to differentiate them.

Thus, at the end of 8th, my infantry were using almost every weapon available (I think the only ones I didn't use were meltas - which never got down to a reasonable cost and didn't work as well with Scions parachuting beyond their optimum range, and snipers - which just weren't very good in general).


Then came 9th. Suddenly, every weapon costed exactly the same. No longer was there any cost benefit to taking a grenade launcher on a veteran over a plasmagun. Not only that, but the change to Overwatch and the drastic increase in the durability of Marines, Orks etc. meant that flamers were now farting into the wind.

Not only that, but weapon costs also no longer took into consideration the cost of the model using them. In 8th, IG characters received discounts on power swords and power fists, because they were being wielded by squishy IG characters with poor stats. But then 9th hit and suddenly they were paying the exact same costs as SM captains with far better durability and melee stats.


I guess what I'm saying is that 8th actually made a lot of solid strides forward in terms of finding appropriate costs for weapons . . . and then 9th just threw the entire thing out of the window for no reason beyond Churn for the Churn God.

 Nazrak wrote:
Just out of interest, how many people who aren't keen on aspects of the new edition have put that down in writing and emailed GW about it?

It's rather academic how many, since the GW filing cabinet for letters/emails/petitions of complaint is the dustbin.
The only language they will understand is people not giving them money for mediocrity. Don't pay them for shoddy, lazy rules. Don't just accept a deeply flawed product because of sunk cost. For the prices they charge, demand better.

That is the only way GW will care and perhaps improve. Anything else is just blowing smoke.

nemesis464 wrote:
I still have let to see a good argument for wargear/weapons points being removed.

The only one people keep coming back to is “it’s easier” which isn’t a good argument in my eyes. I don’t know anyone, even children new to the hobby, that struggled with basic calculator addition before.

Since no one has seemed to have a good argument, I'll take a stab.

The Case for Zero Point Options

It has long been an issue that the game that the Design Studio produces is not played in the way they designed it. This is not a case of the rules not being followed, but one of them assuming players will make the same decisions around setting up a game that the Design Studio uses in their play testing. We've all heard the stories of the playtesters being given specific armies to play and then only wanting specific feedback. We have all seen the Design Studio respond with a parenthetical "that's not what we intended". Zero Point Options is a way to get the player base to play closer to the game the Design Studio uses when they are designing the game.

All indications is that the Design Studio like to play with cool models rather than efficient ones. They bring the special and heavy weapons and randomly upgrade their unit champions in cool ways. They test the game with those models and sculpt the rules to work on the assumption that the game will be played in that manner. The problem is they have so far failed to get the players to do the same. This is where Zero Points Options can help bridge the gap.

Zero Points Options help because the Design Studio's game crafted on the extensive presence of unit options falls apart in the face of the tyranny of upgrade cost. Evidence indicates to me that points values of units is an afterthought in the Design Studio process. They have the units they use to build balanced playtest game and then start working backwards to get the points. The mostly fully-loaded Tactical Squad is worth 180 points. Now how much is the model and how much are the upgrades? I guess these upgrades are 5 points, these are 10, and this one is 20. I guess the models are 130 points left over, so 13 points a model. Do this for every unit (or fudge because X is 5 points there so it is 5 points everywhere) and you get the MFM.

Once the player base get their grubby hands on the MFM they quickly decide that some upgrades are simply not worth the point. "Only a fool puts upgrades on Infantry Squads", "I'm going to keep this unit cheap so I can have more units", and "that upgrade isn't worth the point so I never take it" enter the arena and warp the game well outside of the design parameters. Zero Point Upgrades helps solve this issue.

If the unit is worth X points for Y models with no cost for upgrades, people are more likely to take the upgrades. Also, people can never take a cheaper than designed version of the unit to save points. Limiting the unit to proscribed sizes also removes the issue of players taking "just the right amount" of models in a unit and again warping the Design Studio's points balancing work.

So all the Design Studio needs to do is properly craft the units such that the Zero Point Options are properly balanced against each other. Note that this requires approximate balance not perfect balance. The weapon options of a Terminator Squad are balanced rather well because you have simple and relatively balanced options: Power Fist or Chainfist; Choice of Assault Cannon, Cyclone Missile Launcher or Heavy Flamer for 1 in every 5 models. Players have the choice of 5 or 10 Terminator in a squad (points wise) Produce all the unit datasheets in this fashion and you have a successful use of Zero Point Options.

Design Studio Grade: D
The Design Studio seems to have taken the idea as their goal and fumbled the execution into a barely passing grade. For every well-crafted unit datasheet, there is another the labors under a number of serious flaws such as:

No Downside Every Model Upgrades: The Battlewagon has a large number of no cost additions in the Upgrade section. This is not a 1 in 10 Infantry Squad members can take a Vox Caster, which they assume you will just take. It is the ability to add 6 guns, 2 Extra attacks melee weapons, and a massive upgraded melee weapon for no cost. This all requires extensive modeling, but the difference is still substantial and free.

Inconsistent Design Application: Death Company Marines are allowed to have every model upgrade from Blowgun and Close Combat Weapon into a dizzying array of melee weapon, each with it's own stat line. Sanguinary Guard can only upgrade Encarmine Blade to a Power Fist for 1 in 5 models. Meanwhile, Vanguard Veterans have Heirloom Weapons with no option for a Power Fist or Thunder Hammer! Would it be that hard to produce a second weapon stat line in the PF/TH zone that was balanced with Heirloom Weapons?

No Brainer Upgrades: For may unit champions, there exist a number of upgrades that have no downside. There is no reason to not give your Infantry Squad Sergeant a Plasma Pistol and Power Sword. There is no downside. It wouldn't have been difficult to either add a downside or produce a Sergeant's Melee Weapon and Sergeant's Pistol wargear entry to give them one statline all the time.

So there you go. My case for Zero Point Upgrades along with my assessment on the Design Studio's success in applying it to 10th Edition.

 alextroy wrote:

nemesis464 wrote:
I still have let to see a good argument for wargear/weapons points being removed.

The only one people keep coming back to is “it’s easier” which isn’t a good argument in my eyes. I don’t know anyone, even children new to the hobby, that struggled with basic calculator addition before.

Since no one has seemed to have a good argument, I'll take a stab..

Thanks for the detailed reply. It’s a good explanation as to why it’s been implemented, I just don’t think anything could change my mind as to it being better than good old upgrade points.

 Nazrak wrote:
Just out of interest, how many people who aren't keen on aspects of the new edition have put that down in writing and emailed GW about it?

I'm still not buying rules material from GW after writing to them about their butchery of Codex: Death Guard for NMNR.

nemesis464 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

nemesis464 wrote:
I still have let to see a good argument for wargear/weapons points being removed.

The only one people keep coming back to is “it’s easier” which isn’t a good argument in my eyes. I don’t know anyone, even children new to the hobby, that struggled with basic calculator addition before.

Since no one has seemed to have a good argument, I'll take a stab..

Thanks for the detailed reply. It’s a good explanation as to why it’s been implemented, I just don’t think anything could change my mind as to it being better than good old upgrade points.

This is most likely why those who like the new system are being quiet on it, we have been here before having the same arguments in the defence of power levels. No matter what is said it won’t change anyone’s mind. But if you say you like it, you get set up on by a small minded few on here who love to tell you how wrong you are having your fun!

Andykp wrote:

Spoiler:

nemesis464 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

nemesis464 wrote:
I still have let to see a good argument for wargear/weapons points being removed.

The only one people keep coming back to is “it’s easier” which isn’t a good argument in my eyes. I don’t know anyone, even children new to the hobby, that struggled with basic calculator addition before.

Since no one has seemed to have a good argument, I'll take a stab..

Thanks for the detailed reply. It’s a good explanation as to why it’s been implemented, I just don’t think anything could change my mind as to it being better than good old upgrade points.

This is most likely why those who like the new system are being quiet on it, we have been here before having the same arguments in the defence of power levels. No matter what is said it won’t change anyone’s mind. But if you say you like it, you get set up on by a small minded few on here who love to tell you how wrong you are having your fun!

The poll would suggest that rather than a "few", it's actually the vast majority who dislike this Power-Level-by-a-different-name.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Andykp wrote:

Spoiler:

nemesis464 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

nemesis464 wrote:
I still have let to see a good argument for wargear/weapons points being removed.

The only one people keep coming back to is “it’s easier” which isn’t a good argument in my eyes. I don’t know anyone, even children new to the hobby, that struggled with basic calculator addition before.

Since no one has seemed to have a good argument, I'll take a stab..

Thanks for the detailed reply. It’s a good explanation as to why it’s been implemented, I just don’t think anything could change my mind as to it being better than good old upgrade points.

This is most likely why those who like the new system are being quiet on it, we have been here before having the same arguments in the defence of power levels. No matter what is said it won’t change anyone’s mind. But if you say you like it, you get set up on by a small minded few on here who love to tell you how wrong you are having your fun!

The poll would suggest that rather than a "few", it's actually the vast majority who dislike this Power-Level-by-a-different-name.

He was saying the people who say that they are having fun wrong are small-minded, not the ones who simply do not like the system. I have no problem with people enjoying PL privately, any more than I have a problem with people eating foods I do not like, but the vocal supporters need to be shut down so 40k can get back on course. If the 60% of the community had been more vocal in their disagreement with PL when Astra Militarum were updated then we might have been saved from this farce. Still we see people saying wait and see for the codexes. How did that work out in 9th edition? The pts changes at the start of the edition were awful and the third codex turned the game on its head. We should not wait and see, GW should create pts, leave the current power level available for people that want that and give us true points, if it was balanced internally and externally I'd happily pay for it every 6 months.

 alextroy wrote:

Spoiler:

Since no one has seemed to have a good argument, I'll take a stab.

The Case for Zero Point Options

It has long been an issue that the game that the Design Studio produces is not played in the way they designed it. This is not a case of the rules not being followed, but one of them assuming players will make the same decisions around setting up a game that the Design Studio uses in their play testing. We've all heard the stories of the playtesters being given specific armies to play and then only wanting specific feedback. We have all seen the Design Studio respond with a parenthetical "that's not what we intended". Zero Point Options is a way to get the player base to play closer to the game the Design Studio uses when they are designing the game.

All indications is that the Design Studio like to play with cool models rather than efficient ones. They bring the special and heavy weapons and randomly upgrade their unit champions in cool ways. They test the game with those models and sculpt the rules to work on the assumption that the game will be played in that manner. The problem is they have so far failed to get the players to do the same. This is where Zero Points Options can help bridge the gap.

Zero Points Options help because the Design Studio's game crafted on the extensive presence of unit options falls apart in the face of the tyranny of upgrade cost. Evidence indicates to me that points values of units is an afterthought in the Design Studio process. They have the units they use to build balanced playtest game and then start working backwards to get the points. The mostly fully-loaded Tactical Squad is worth 180 points. Now how much is the model and how much are the upgrades? I guess these upgrades are 5 points, these are 10, and this one is 20. I guess the models are 130 points left over, so 13 points a model. Do this for every unit (or fudge because X is 5 points there so it is 5 points everywhere) and you get the MFM.

Once the player base get their grubby hands on the MFM they quickly decide that some upgrades are simply not worth the point. "Only a fool puts upgrades on Infantry Squads", "I'm going to keep this unit cheap so I can have more units", and "that upgrade isn't worth the point so I never take it" enter the arena and warp the game well outside of the design parameters. Zero Point Upgrades helps solve this issue.

If the unit is worth X points for Y models with no cost for upgrades, people are more likely to take the upgrades. Also, people can never take a cheaper than designed version of the unit to save points. Limiting the unit to proscribed sizes also removes the issue of players taking "just the right amount" of models in a unit and again warping the Design Studio's points balancing work.

So all the Design Studio needs to do is properly craft the units such that the Zero Point Options are properly balanced against each other. Note that this requires approximate balance not perfect balance. The weapon options of a Terminator Squad are balanced rather well because you have simple and relatively balanced options: Power Fist or Chainfist; Choice of Assault Cannon, Cyclone Missile Launcher or Heavy Flamer for 1 in every 5 models. Players have the choice of 5 or 10 Terminator in a squad (points wise) Produce all the unit datasheets in this fashion and you have a successful use of Zero Point Options.

Design Studio Grade: D
The Design Studio seems to have taken the idea as their goal and fumbled the execution into a barely passing grade. For every well-crafted unit datasheet, there is another the labors under a number of serious flaws such as:

No Downside Every Model Upgrades: The Battlewagon has a large number of no cost additions in the Upgrade section. This is not a 1 in 10 Infantry Squad members can take a Vox Caster, which they assume you will just take. It is the ability to add 6 guns, 2 Extra attacks melee weapons, and a massive upgraded melee weapon for no cost. This all requires extensive modeling, but the difference is still substantial and free.

Inconsistent Design Application: Death Company Marines are allowed to have every model upgrade from Blowgun and Close Combat Weapon into a dizzying array of melee weapon, each with it's own stat line. Sanguinary Guard can only upgrade Encarmine Blade to a Power Fist for 1 in 5 models. Meanwhile, Vanguard Veterans have Heirloom Weapons with no option for a Power Fist or Thunder Hammer! Would it be that hard to produce a second weapon stat line in the PF/TH zone that was balanced with Heirloom Weapons?

No Brainer Upgrades: For may unit champions, there exist a number of upgrades that have no downside. There is no reason to not give your Infantry Squad Sergeant a Plasma Pistol and Power Sword. There is no downside. It wouldn't have been difficult to either add a downside or produce a Sergeant's Melee Weapon and Sergeant's Pistol wargear entry to give them one statline all the time.

So there you go. My case for Zero Point Upgrades along with my assessment on the Design Studio's success in applying it to 10th Edition.

This is a good writeup, and I think it gets to the heart of what people's main problem with this is. Anybody who thinks about the zero points upgrade approach for even a short length of time would immediately understand it is entirely possible to write a system where upgrades are "free". They're not actually free, just included in the cost of the unit but that's practically the same thing. In order to do this you need to design your game so that all the upgrades a unit can take are equal, or close enough to it to not matter enough to affect balance. What's really, really frustrating is that 10th is a ground-up rewrite of the system so GW had the opportunity to do this. They could have used their weapons keyword system to try to make all heavy weapons have a solid preferred role in which they excel. They can use restrictions like "1 in every 5 models can take a Power Fist" to still allow upgraded weapons but limit their numbers and therefore still determine a decent cost for the unit as a whole.

I think your grade of D is far too generous. I'd give them an F at most, and possibly just send their work back on the basis they haven't even tried. There's just no coherent thought or strategy in what they're doing. We can see that from obvious things like the Battlewagon or the Tomb Blades, with free upgrades that are literally just improvements to the baseline unit. Or the fact some squad leaders get generic "squad leader sidearms" while others have the "option" to take a plasma pistol, which is just an upgrade over their regular pistol. It's infuriating. The utter bullgak of the article they released alongside the MFM explaining their "process" and "reasoning" was patronising in the extreme too.

GW have a history of this sort of thing. They take concepts and ideas from other designers and other games, then totally misunderstand them and fumble the execution. Even their more legalese approach to rules with sequences with steps mapped out are an example of this. It feels like a 5-year old mimicking something they've seen without understanding anything about it.

 vipoid wrote:


I guess what I'm saying is that 8th actually made a lot of solid strides forward in terms of finding appropriate costs for weapons . . . and then 9th just threw the entire thing out of the window for no reason beyond Churn for the Churn God.

This is true and it is puzzling to me to this day. Let's face it, 9th was 8th with different missions and new terrain rules, but overall it was the same system. Nevertheless somehow GW felt they have to throw out the point values they had nicely refined in the prior 3 years, these would have been a great base for the new edition. Instead everything had to be 5 or 10 now, like in 5th - 7th.
And in comes 10th with... everything 0.

Slipspace wrote:
In order to do this you need to design your game so that all the upgrades a unit can take are equal, or close enough to it to not matter enough to affect balance.

I don't think all upgrades should be equal though. Some things should be better than others, and this should be reflected in rarity, cost, both, or versatility vs specificity.

If we see the Codexes do points per upgrade, then yeah there’s no need for any to of equal utility.

If not? Equal utility is desirable.

My issue with upgrades are whether they are meaningful in game.

Sheild Vanes on Necron Tomb Blades are a clear example where its not. "Would you like to go to a 3+ Sv over a 4+ Sv" - "obvious yes, if its worth the points?"

So most of the time, its going to be either an auto-take, or a never take. Its very hard to have a scenario where both options are justifiable.

Now you could write the rules so there were "Heavy Tomb Blades" with say a 3+/5++ that play completely differently to "Light Tomb Blades" (4+, perhaps even a 5+) without these upgrades. You'd also probably need to tweak the guns, speed, objective scoring etc etc.

But if you aren't going to have that in the rules, its pointless. The option should just be removed. Make Necron Tomb Blades a 3+ Sv unit and move on.

Its arguably the same with the Battlewagon. In "the rules" - do you want a slimmed down no-gun option to be played? Or do you want the Battlewagon to have such and such firepower, and you don't really care how its modelled? If you want meaningfully different units, this can be set up in the rules - or not if you don't.

You might say this sucks and removes agency from the player etc - but ultimately that argument applies to every limitation in the rules.

I think the thing that annoys me most is that it's so damn inconsistent...

Some upgrades have been restricted to what comes in the box - Kabalite Warriors can't take two blasters in a 10 man squad any more.

On the other hand, CSM Raptors can still take two meltaguns in a squad of 5 - despite only one coming in the box.

And the poor DE Wyches have lost their special weapons altogether.

There's a lot of flavour missing too. What's the Succubus armed with now? Succubus weapons, duh! The Solarite leading your flock of Scourges? He's packing a Solarite weapon. The Chaos Lord In Terminator Armour can swap his combi-bolter and exalted weapon for a pair of accursed weapons - that means nothing. What's the difference between an exalted weapon (doesn't sound very chaosy to me!) and an accursed weapon? Why did lightning claws have to be renamed as the comparatively lame and non-descriptive accursed weapons? Oh, unless you're a Warp Talon - then they're warp claws... And obviously, you still get to call them lightning claws if they're in a loyalist marine army. FFS

Like we've been saying: Different people writing each book, locked in different rooms - perhaps on different continents - with no communication between them, and some of them were given 8th Edition Codices for reference rather than 9th Edition books.

Tyel wrote:
My issue with upgrades are whether they are meaningful in game.

Sheild Vanes on Necron Tomb Blades are a clear example where its not. "Would you like to go to a 3+ Sv over a 4+ Sv" - "obvious yes, if its worth the points?"

So most of the time, its going to be either an auto-take, or a never take. Its very hard to have a scenario where both options are justifiable.

Now you could write the rules so there were "Heavy Tomb Blades" with say a 3+/5++ that play completely differently to "Light Tomb Blades" (4+, perhaps even a 5+) without these upgrades. You'd also probably need to tweak the guns, speed, objective scoring etc etc.

But if you aren't going to have that in the rules, its pointless. The option should just be removed. Make Necron Tomb Blades a 3+ Sv unit and move on.

Its arguably the same with the Battlewagon. In "the rules" - do you want a slimmed down no-gun option to be played? Or do you want the Battlewagon to have such and such firepower, and you don't really care how its modelled? If you want meaningfully different units, this can be set up in the rules - or not if you don't.

You might say this sucks and removes agency from the player etc - but ultimately that argument applies to every limitation in the rules.

I think in cases where the core rules actually have complexity and depth it is more possible to have points based updates. What you say here is true for Leman Russ tank sponsons as well (either so cheap as to be "always on" or so expensive it's not worth).

In 4th, though, back when Blasts scattered, Defensive Weapons existed, and Ordnance had certain very specific rules about when it could be fired, you had genuine thought put into it:
1) Heavy Bolter and Heavy Flamer sponsons were Strength 5, making them Defensive Weapons. These were fantastic on a tank that wants to maneuver as they can supplement the main armament while maneuvering at Combat Speed... EXCEPT
2) Firing an Ordnance weapon meant that you couldn't fire any other guns, Defensive or Not, so there's no reason to take them on an Ordnance tank, EXCEPT
3) Ordnance scattered when on the move a full 2d6 inches unmitigated; moving and firing with the secondary guns against certain targets may be more reliable than moving and slinging Ordnance. So you have to decide whether or not the points charged for sponsons was worth this use case (and the firepower increase when the main gun was destroyed). AND
4) Plasma Cannons and Multimeltas were not Defensive Weapons, so you had to seriously consider their use-cases if you planned to use them.

So you ended up in a case where Leman Russ Exterminators were good with Heavy Bolter sponsons because they could shoot on the move with almost all their guns (fitting the fluff about them being slightly lighter and more maneuverable on the battlefield than a regular Russ), while something like the old Fireball Demolisher was pretty much an either-or situation with auto-hitting heavy flamers on the move, or the risky moving Ordnance roll..

Anyways, whether or not an upgrade was worth it was much more complex back when the core rules were deeper than "do I want +1 save, or don't I?"