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.

Let us just make two lists of weapons of
Imperium Melee weapon A, Imperium Melee Weapon B, Tyranid Melee Weapon A, etc.

Why even use names? Let's use code! M(for melee)S(for single)S3AP2R18. Flavor is for NEERRRRDS

If you took the HH system, let all 40k factions in,

It would only work for some factions given the timeline. marines/chaos marines, demons, imperial guard and mechanicus are already there.

As eldar/dark eldar are effectively immortal most of the named characters were still around in 30K (less so for dark eldar given the way their society works)

We also know orks were definately around but none of the 40K named characters would be.

An odd necron awakening here and there would work as well.

where you run into problems would be
.tau-don't exist
.tyranids-not here yet/ditto for GSC
.sisters of battle do not exist, but you do have sisters of silence already filling that role.
.assassins exist but not the inquisition ordos like grey knights

Since HH 1.0 is just a fixed version of 7th ed. you could easily use any of the 3rd-7th ed codexes for necrons, eldar, dark eldar and orks (with some restrictions) in the HH setting without a problem.

Wayniac wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
I don't mind the WS/BS being baked in.

I do mind when two weapons on two different units that look very similar (or are literally the same sculpt) have significant differences in other stats that require me to constantly double-check to make sure I'm not getting them mixed up or forgetting some subtle detail that distinguishes one unit from another.

As I understand it, this is intentional. Because a powerfist in the hands of a guardsman should be different than one on a space marine.

Which I get, but it does bog everything down.

But they were different in the era we're comparing to. A powerfist on a Guardsman was S6 and WS3 or 4. A powerfist on a Marine was S8 and WS4 or 5. A powerfist in the hands of a Marine hit more reliably and harder, and was able to inflict Instant Death on heavy infantry.

You just had to remember that a powerfist doubled S and ignored armor at the cost of striking last, and then you could infer how a powerfist works on any platform that could take them. It made sense for the performance of melee weapons to be contingent on the wielder, whereas ranged weapons were more fixed in their capabilities.

The issue is, like HBMC pointed out, you've got the same weapon doing different things on different models, but you also have different weapons all being treated the same on a model, and there's no rhyme or reason to it. You look at the model, you look at the weapons it's armed with, and you know jack gak because that bonesword+lash whip might be a distinct weapon profile (Hive Tyrant, Tyrant Guard) or it might just be a modeling choice with no gameplay significance whatsoever (Tyranid Warriors), and even if it does have a unique profile you don't actually know what it does until you go and check the datasheet.

It's like GW forgot that the whole reason WYSIWYG is a thing is because it's fething confusing when the models don't align to their rules.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And then in the 'Nid Codex, claws, a sword, a talon and a whip are all the same thing.

Most of the time. Sometimes they're different.

Actually I brought this up in 9th, showing that the 9th Tyranid Codex had either 11 or 13 different versions of scything talons, and that it was inconsistent as well (Carnifex had Carnifex Scything Talons, the Screamer Killer had Screamer Killer Scything Talons, and the Thornback had... not Thornback Scything Talons, but also Carnifex Scything Talons).

Well yes, it is Tyranids.

Tyranids have wildly different sizes of creatures, from hormagaunts all the way to Hierophants.

They are pretty much the best example of needing to have considerably different stats for the same kind of weapons because it comes in all possible sizes.

Yes, different sizes, not a unique set of claws per creature.

You could have easily done:

Talons (Gaunt-level)
Scything Talons (Warrior-level)
Monstrous Scything Talons (Carnifex/Trygon-level)
Gigantic Scything Talons (Tervigon/Maleceptor-level)
Gargantuan Scything Talons (Hierodule-level)

You certainly didn't need separate talons for Warriors, Raveners, Tyrant Guard, Lictors, Carnifexes, Screamer Killers, Hive Tyrants and on and on and on.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Yes, different sizes, not a unique set of claws per creature.

You could have easily done:

Talons (Gaunt-level)
Scything Talons (Warrior-level)
Monstrous Scything Talons (Carnifex/Trygon-level)
Gigantic Scything Talons (Tervigon/Maleceptor-level)
Gargantuan Scything Talons (Hierodule-level)

You certainly didn't need separate talons for Warriors, Raveners, Tyrant Guard, Lictors, Carnifexes, Screamer Killers, Hive Tyrants and on and on and on.

Tyrant Guard uses the same talons as Warriors, Raveners arguably a point, but Lictor talons are simply much larger than warriors and thus need to be level above.
Hierophant Talons also need to be their own thing as they are much larger than even a Hierodule talon.
Meanwhile the Hive Tyrant's feet talons are smaller than his monstrous scything talons.

And all that ignores the issue that 10th's design means that WS and A characteristics are on the weapon, and a Trygon definitely has much more attacks than a Carnifex while a Tyrant hits on 2+.

Those are minor differences, especially the Tyrants's claws. They're not worth keeping as entirely separate weapon types. And any variation should be covered by the application of USRs anyway, as that's far simpler and far more consistent.

Moreover, I'm saying that in a world where WS/BS and melee attacks are not part of a weapons profile, but part of the unit's core stats (like it used to be). You don't need a separate weapon for every single creature when you have that, despite the completely unnecessary 13 varieties of Scything Talon we had in 9th.

I don't believe the Lictor's talons are a minor difference considering they are considerably superior by having D2 and AP-2 (over the D1 and AP-1 of Warrior Scything Talons) and are meant to kill multi-wound characters.

And that should go double for the Hierophant that is supposed to be able to kill Titans in melee.

 Tyran wrote:
I don't believe the Lictor's talons are a minor difference considering they are considerably superior by having D2 and AP-2 (over the D1 and AP-1 of Warrior Scything Talons) and are meant to kill multi-wound characters.

And that should go double for the Hierophant that is supposed to be able to kill Titans in melee.

"Master Crafted/Deadly Scything Talons", where Master Crafted/Deadly is a USR that means +1AP and +1 Damage.

But why should Carnifexes and Screamer Killers have different Talons?

An USR for a single profile is not an USR.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
But why should Carnifexes and Screamer Killers have different Talons?

It was a trick to simplify the steps to determine the number of attacks. Carnifexes made an additional attack for each talon. Scream Killers meanwhile simply had the number of attacks included in their Attack characteristic and thus didn't need the rules for additional attacks on the talons.

 Tyran wrote:
An USR for a single profile is not an USR.

Who said it would go on a single profile?

It wouldn't even go on the weapon's profile anyway. The weapon's profile would be set - that's the damned point of the profile, to avoid the current mess of inconsistently bespoke and generic weaponry! - but instead be on the unit itself.

Creating a bunch of bespoke rules on units to give the illusion of wargear simplicity seems weirdly circular.

Either way end with bespoke weaponry, the only difference if the bespoke part is in the weapon profile or in the unit datasheet.

But they're not bespoke. They're universal.

What about that don't you get?

You are creating a supposed universal rule to avoid creating one weapon profile.

It don't see what is universal about that.

No I'm not.

And you're the one who said that the Lictor should be extra special in the first place. I'd rather just say that all its weapons are poisonous and therefore Anti-Infantry 2+. *shrugs*

 Tyran wrote:
An USR for a single profile is not an USR.

Perhaps you didn't understand the exercise then?

The USR gets used all over the place in lieu of a bunch of formerly bespoke weapons. Instead of Bolter Supremus Exterminatus on a few wargear sheets with it's own profile, the weapon is just Master Crafted Bolter using the standard Bolter profile, but with an extra pip of AP and Damage. Instead of Holy Power Sword of Slicing with bespoke stats, it's just Master Crafted Power Sword . . . with an extra pip of AP and Damage. Instead of Special Eldar Exarch Supersword it's a Master Crafted Power Sword with an extra pip of AP and Damage over a standard Power Sword. Instead of Tau Super-Pulse-Blazer it's Master Crafted Pulse Rifle . . . with an extra pip of AP and Damage. Old One Eyes Monstrous Scything Talons becoome not a bespoke set, but Master Crafted Monstrous Scything Talons . . .with an extra pip of AP and Damage.

etc. etc. etc. Instead of making a huge list of bespoke weapons, take a common weapon profile and in such and such cases pump it with a USR that everyone is familiar with because every codex has a few use cases of it.

This was a strength of the setup of earlier editions. Everybody knows what a Power Weapon does, and a term like Daemonic Strength gives a pretty clear indication of what the upgrade is. So Chaos Lord with Daemonic Strength and a Power Weapon is standard Space Marine profile Strength, boosted by +1 for Daemonic Strength, and doing what all Power Weapons did, which was ignore Armor Saves. Opponent sees familiar profile, with familiar weapon, with intuitively understood bonus. Not WTF is a Lictor Talon?!

Rihgu wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insularum wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
I don't mind the WS/BS being baked in.

I do mind when two weapons on two different units that look very similar (or are literally the same sculpt) have significant differences in other stats that require me to constantly double-check to make sure I'm not getting them mixed up or forgetting some subtle detail that distinguishes one unit from another.

As I understand it, this is intentional. Because a powerfist in the hands of a guardsman should be different than one on a space marine.

Which I get, but it does bog everything down.

H.B.M.C. wrote:The issue isn't the Power Fist on a Guardsmen being different to a Power Fist on a Marine. The issue is Power Fists within the Marine list having different rules depending on who's wielding it.

Simplified and streamlined would be having the minimum number of rules for a thing to work.

Go check out the latest Deathwatch index, updated this week. On the Proteus Killteam datasheet a powerfist can be:
*An actual powerfist (as long as a terminator is holding it)
*A close combat weapon (if a foot vet has anything other than a boltgun)
*A long vigil melee weapon (if you have a boltgun)
*Simultaneously either a close combat weapon or a long vigil melee weapon (if you have a jump pack, one hand holds a CCW, the other a LVMW regardless of whether you modelled any combo of pistols, shield or any melee weapons)

Marines/Guardsmen having standardised profiles (including weapon skill and attacks) and fists having Str x2 / AP -2 / Dam 2 / Unwieldy across the board is objectively better.

This is a weird argument that seems to be very bad faith?

At this point I'm surprised you aren't saying the power fist could also represent a frag cannon, assault cannon, or cyclone missile launcher. You're just reading options on the data sheet and suggesting, for some reason, that a power fist would be an appropriate bit to represent them, against all logic.

Rihgu wrote:

Spoiler:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think he's arguing against that level of abstraction.

Right, right, but it's not an abstraction that exists in the case he's building with the examples presented. A strawman, if you will.

Apologies if I wasn't clear enough - but what point are you trying to make?

Frag cannons, assault cannons and CML's have components and get rules support, while being fairly consistent too. Powerfists have components but don't always get consistent rules and sometimes are not even considered to be powerfists.

The Proteus killteam can include Van Vet models - the kit they come from has a wide variety of bits including fists. All of them are considered at best to be long vigil melee weapons (and their pistols/shields RAW do not exist). This is an abstraction that exists.
It's the same in the Fortis killteam too, all of the Intercessor Sergeant options (normally including a powerfist) are also now condensed into long vigil melee weapons. The same abstraction exists here (the fist is not a fist).

Again - sorry if I wasn't clear, but I personally think that there is too much abstraction going on. One of the stated goals of 10th was to simplify things and I think that in places the abstraction has made things worse; weapon/ballistic skill and attacks are better off on the models statline not the weapons, this would allow you to move all weapon datasheets to an armoury card and for them all to be consistent.

 JNAProductions wrote:
But why should Carnifexes and Screamer Killers have different Talons?

They didn't for several editions. all a pair of talons did was add +1 attack to the base characteristic of the bug. the type of bug didn't matter.

I don't remember the exact build but one of the classic "elite" carnifexes you could take in 5th ed had to be no more than 115 points. since it was a monsterous creature that ignores armor saves you just gave it a bunch of scything talons to give it extra attacks and a WS boost i don't remember if you could give it the increased armor save or not (extended carapace) within those points limits.

PenitentJake wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
I wouldn't spend to much time arguing against PenitentJake on taht, its not really an argument that was made in good faith to begin with. As you noted, it completely discounts any form of historical wargaming, but also completely ignores the concept of "its the journey, not the destination" that matters.

You are correct sir- I retract those particular statements. Truth is I've just got the Heresy Blues.

I want to look forward to what GW releases- I want to be excited about my hobby. Prior to HH going mainstream and the arrival of Legions Imperialis, a week on Warcom or an issue of White Dwarf used to give me something to be stoked about. But nothing Heresy era will ever be of interest to me, no matter how awesome its rules are. And sure, there are some cool plastic Heresy models that can be used in 40k, but Marines aren't really my thing. I like the Chambers Militant of the Inquisition, so some of those plastic models interest me- I'd take a Spartan for each Chamber... But it's low priority.

So yeah, I am bitter about Heresy, and it is affecting my participation in this thread. If it didn't exclude Sisters and Xenos, I probably wouldn't be barking as loud as I am. I don't doubt it's an excellent game; I don't doubt that it's better than 10th. My most recent comments about the fixed outcomes in Heresy era games are really just an extension of my frustration with the over-exposure of a set of games that have nothing to offer me. If the game included Sisters and Xenos, I certainly wouldn't let the historical nature of the era get in my way. So allow me to put the last nail in the coffin of that argument myself.

Maybee you would like to run your SoB as Sisters of silence. They got their own list that can field a full army. Granted a bit low on the armor side of things if you are a lover of tanks but SoS look like fun, if only gw would throw out some more bits necessary to convert but logistics of releases and supply of certain things is just... NoPe atm with gw.

As for Not Online!!!'s other responses: yes, I agree, we probably do want the same thing- room for Narrative in our games. And yes, I agree with your second comment as well- a system that let's you express your fluff in the list building stage doesn't prevent, and does actually support, a system that allows you to earn your fluff by playing.

If you took the HH system, let all 40k factions in, and added a Crusade variant with as many tools as the one we've got, might I like that better than 9th ed Crusade? Maybe. But because that has never happened and never will, 9th ed Crusade is the closest I'll ever get. I'm not saying it's objectively better than whatever the rest of you prefer- it's just the best fit for what I am looking for that GW has ever produced.

PS- To add insult to injury: WD 493 contains the first bespoke WD Crusade content of the 10th Edition... And surprising no one, it's for Marines- specifically Tome Keepers. WD 494 will contain not an Index Xenos or an Index Chaotica, but yet another Index Astartes, this time the Raptors.
You know, Space Marines- the guys who came in the starter box, already have their Codex and hence all of their bespoke Crusade content. The guys who had yet another release wave? The guys who have a whole set of Historical games built specifically for them and a limited set of friends?

Marines sell, marines sell even more in 40k than 30k. Though GW has as always not understood why that is the case and refuses to learn, afterall why touch a running system. Sadly that comes with the consequences of chaos playing second fiddle (and also getting more often than not misshandled on a fundamental level but that is another discussion) and xenos ... yeah no.. let's not talk about that.

WD SHOULD BE the life-support system for the rest of us while we wait for our dexes. If I was an editor, I'd release faction specific hold-over content in reverse order of dex releases, allowing the faction with the last dex of the ed to get at least some Crusade content rather than leaving them a mere 3-6 months of playtime before the next fething reset.

GW's release cycle is fethed regardless and it has system. Imagine if GW would update all rules at once in 40k. The real lack of quality some books experience would be laid bare within 1-2 weeks top. And it's not merely rules that are fethed, in HH we are at the stage were we have more of everything else than we have actual troop kits for marines... So basically half the legions can't realistically field an army if they rely on melee tacs as their main building bricks, in a marine centric game...

Then legiones imperialis also get's pushed. ToW is also around the corner. And honestly considering how long out of stock certain products are regardless of system, how artificially stretched out the rules releases already are it's at a point where GW either needs to severly make improvements to their rules distribution and creation and logistics or innevitably make everyone suffer.

Imo, they got a site, clean up their rules and release them there at once, you could even run it as a type of open betatest for rules. But that would sell less books in gw's eyes , including WD's , which from a hobbying perspective also hasn't really improved and turned mostly into further forced rules sales and mere advertisement.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Hey, Jake, how are you with "unofficial rules"? Because just like in HH 1.0, we're currently getting "unofficial rules" for factions that are unsupported by gw in 2.0. The Panoptica team has already released an excellent (IMHO) ruleset for Eldar, and more will most likely be on the way. Just saying. Not looking for a fight.

Thanks for this Gad- I may actually check it out. Drukhari is a strong army for me- I call GSC my secondary, but really, it's kind of a tie between GSC and Drukhari. And I do have a fair bit of Aeldari too.

 aphyon wrote:


Since HH 1.0 is just a fixed version of 7th ed. you could easily use any of the 3rd-7th ed codexes for necrons, eldar, dark eldar and orks (with some restrictions) in the HH setting without a problem.

Another decent suggestion- I do have a 7th ed GSC dex.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Maybee you would like to run your SoB as Sisters of silence. They got their own list that can field a full army. Granted a bit low on the armor side of things if you are a lover of tanks but SoS look like fun, if only gw would throw out some more bits necessary to convert but logistics of releases and supply of certain things is just... NoPe atm with gw.

This might actually be the best suggestion- I love SoS, and the Kharon Pattern Acquisitor is one of my favourite vehicles- I've lamented the fact that it doesn't have 40k rules (though I know I could make some up). But playing SoS in 30k would make it worth my while to have one.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Marines sell, marines sell even more in 40k than 30k. Though GW has as always not understood why that is the case and refuses to learn, afterall why touch a running system. Sadly that comes with the consequences of chaos playing second fiddle (and also getting more often than not misshandled on a fundamental level but that is another discussion) and xenos ... yeah no.. let's not talk about that.

Yeah, it's true. Part of me wonders if it's chicken and egg... Like in an edition where a different faction got the kind of attention SM get, would it shift the numbers? I'm not gonna claim it would- I'm just saying it might. The only way we'd know for sure is if GW actually tries it, and I don't think they can afford the risk.

But the Dwarf... That is a thing that could be used to balance the scales. It doesn't prevent the cash cow from dominating the release cycle, it just gives other factions SOMETHING so we aren't feeling constantly neglected. Heck, if I had the time to take a shot at being an "influencer" I'd start a quarterly digital publication myself and call it "Not Marine Magazine." It would include 40k content for everything except Marines, who would not get a single mention over the lifespan of the project... Not because I hate them (I don't), just because they don't really need it.

I think some of the largest divorces in soul via wargear seems to be that a lot of it is segmented out via multiple datagsheets, random rules and consolidated. Which in isolation might not be good or bad per se, but the issue is the player agency element is gone. Even if you knew there was a combination of 7 random items for the best chaos lord, the fact you don't get to make that choice yourself any more and is instead baked in with a singular enhancement to push it in any real direction, removes creative license.

So the end results for the characters ability in game, may he the same now as then possibly, but the fact its chosen for you and there's no "scheming" involved or ability to take weird combos that result in sub-par characters, means some people feel robbed of choices.

Dudeface wrote:
I think some of the largest divorces in soul via wargear seems to be that a lot of it is segmented out via multiple datagsheets, random rules and consolidated. Which in isolation might not be good or bad per se, but the issue is the player agency element is gone. Even if you knew there was a combination of 7 random items for the best chaos lord, the fact you don't get to make that choice yourself any more and is instead baked in with a singular enhancement to push it in any real direction, removes creative license.

So the end results for the characters ability in game, may he the same now as then possibly, but the fact its chosen for you and there's no "scheming" involved or ability to take weird combos that result in sub-par characters, means some people feel robbed of choices.

If it were infact 7 sheets, or more realistically foot, terminator, 4 differing Daemonic mounts, bike and jumppack (8) then we may could have a discussion.

As it stands tho, we don't get 6 of those 8 anymore. And that is just the lord.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Perhaps you didn't understand the exercise then?

The USR gets used all over the place in lieu of a bunch of formerly bespoke weapons. Instead of Bolter Supremus Exterminatus on a few wargear sheets with it's own profile, the weapon is just Master Crafted Bolter using the standard Bolter profile, but with an extra pip of AP and Damage. Instead of Holy Power Sword of Slicing with bespoke stats, it's just Master Crafted Power Sword . . . with an extra pip of AP and Damage. Instead of Special Eldar Exarch Supersword it's a Master Crafted Power Sword with an extra pip of AP and Damage over a standard Power Sword. Instead of Tau Super-Pulse-Blazer it's Master Crafted Pulse Rifle . . . with an extra pip of AP and Damage. Old One Eyes Monstrous Scything Talons becoome not a bespoke set, but Master Crafted Monstrous Scything Talons . . .with an extra pip of AP and Damage.

etc. etc. etc. Instead of making a huge list of bespoke weapons, take a common weapon profile and in such and such cases pump it with a USR that everyone is familiar with because every codex has a few use cases of it.

This was a strength of the setup of earlier editions. Everybody knows what a Power Weapon does, and a term like Daemonic Strength gives a pretty clear indication of what the upgrade is. So Chaos Lord with Daemonic Strength and a Power Weapon is standard Space Marine profile Strength, boosted by +1 for Daemonic Strength, and doing what all Power Weapons did, which was ignore Armor Saves. Opponent sees familiar profile, with familiar weapon, with intuitively understood bonus. Not WTF is a Lictor Talon?!

Master-crafted didn't mess with the weapon's stats, it gave rerolls, and I imagine Daemonic Strength gave strength rather than changing weapon stats. More importantly they were mostly used as upgrades rather than inbuilt abilities, and even in the few cases they came as part of the standard profile it was for named characters.

And also I have seen the 7th and HH USRs lists. They are ridiculous and have many examples of different USRs that do the same thing but slightly different (rending vs breaching, hatred vs zealot, sunder vs armorbane, poison vs fleshbane, reach vs sudden strike, etc). You are simply moving the cognitive load somewhere.

And thematically it makes sense for Space Marine armory to be mostly the same for most models. After all there are only so many ways a bolter can be a bolter. Tyranids though, we don't have standardized sizes and also part of the fun is that Marine players have no idea what our stuff does.

And again a Lictor talon is literally twice the length of a warrior talon, that isn't something you represent with an USR but by simply giving it a profile that matches its size. A heavy bolter is a different profile from a bolter, not just a bolter with the Heavy USR.

must say now individual models have their own card with their own stats the idea of "here is a USR and is +1 on stat x" would be seriously annoying

bake it into the profile, stick a little "*" next to it and have text "profile modified" so it doesn't appear to be an accident and run with it

Not Online!!! wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
I think some of the largest divorces in soul via wargear seems to be that a lot of it is segmented out via multiple datagsheets, random rules and consolidated. Which in isolation might not be good or bad per se, but the issue is the player agency element is gone. Even if you knew there was a combination of 7 random items for the best chaos lord, the fact you don't get to make that choice yourself any more and is instead baked in with a singular enhancement to push it in any real direction, removes creative license.

So the end results for the characters ability in game, may he the same now as then possibly, but the fact its chosen for you and there's no "scheming" involved or ability to take weird combos that result in sub-par characters, means some people feel robbed of choices.

If it were infact 7 sheets, or more realistically foot, terminator, 4 differing Daemonic mounts, bike and jumppack (8) then we may could have a discussion.

As it stands tho, we don't get 6 of those 8 anymore. And that is just the lord.

Oh for sure, some stuff had been lost to the annals of time. I doubt we'd get anyway, likey

Lord
Jump pack
Bike
Daemon mount
Terminator

But never the less, the fact you can't have a long legged mcdaddy lord with 10" or whatever it was strides due to daemon legs and carrying a powerfist and daemon power sword and carrying a telephony homer is more the point. It likely isn't effective in game terms, but the default lord we have now could be representative of the "right" or efficient choice from before.

Dudeface wrote:
So the end results for the characters ability in game, may he the same now as then possibly, but the fact its chosen for you and there's no "scheming" involved or ability to take weird combos that result in sub-par characters, means some people feel robbed of choices.

That's just Warlord Traits and Relics though.

I feel robbed of choice when I can't take a Jump Pack on my Chaos Lord anymore. That's a bit more concrete than ever-changing Traits/Relics.

Not being able to take an extra fancy sword is one thing. Losing the option for the sword altogether, or having the profile changed so that a sword and a fist and an axe are all the same thing, that's a problem. And that problem only gets worse when they're the same thing in some units, but separate items in others.

I mean, the Chaos Lord can take two Accursed Weapons, but there's no reason two. Meanwhile the Terminator Chaos Lord can take paired Accursed Weapons and they are different to two Accursed Weapons. And he can get an Exalted Weapon, which can look the same as a Chaos Lord's Accursed Weapon. Chosen can also get paired Accursed Weapons, and Power Fists. Legionnaires can't get Power Fists, but can get a Heavy Melee Weapon (so inventive!) that can just as easily be a giant axe, a power fist, or a 2x4 with a nail stuck through the end. The Aspiring Champ can also take two Accursed Weapons, but not paired Accursed Weapons.

This is ridiculous.

 Tyran wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Perhaps you didn't understand the exercise then?

The USR gets used all over the place in lieu of a bunch of formerly bespoke weapons. Instead of Bolter Supremus Exterminatus on a few wargear sheets with it's own profile, the weapon is just Master Crafted Bolter using the standard Bolter profile, but with an extra pip of AP and Damage. Instead of Holy Power Sword of Slicing with bespoke stats, it's just Master Crafted Power Sword . . . with an extra pip of AP and Damage. Instead of Special Eldar Exarch Supersword it's a Master Crafted Power Sword with an extra pip of AP and Damage over a standard Power Sword. Instead of Tau Super-Pulse-Blazer it's Master Crafted Pulse Rifle . . . with an extra pip of AP and Damage. Old One Eyes Monstrous Scything Talons becoome not a bespoke set, but Master Crafted Monstrous Scything Talons . . .with an extra pip of AP and Damage.

etc. etc. etc. Instead of making a huge list of bespoke weapons, take a common weapon profile and in such and such cases pump it with a USR that everyone is familiar with because every codex has a few use cases of it.

This was a strength of the setup of earlier editions. Everybody knows what a Power Weapon does, and a term like Daemonic Strength gives a pretty clear indication of what the upgrade is. So Chaos Lord with Daemonic Strength and a Power Weapon is standard Space Marine profile Strength, boosted by +1 for Daemonic Strength, and doing what all Power Weapons did, which was ignore Armor Saves. Opponent sees familiar profile, with familiar weapon, with intuitively understood bonus. Not WTF is a Lictor Talon?!

Master-crafted didn't mess with the weapon's stats, it gave rerolls,

It's just an example, not a direct lift from 4th.

and I imagine Daemonic Strength gave strength rather than changing weapon stats.

My example assumes unit S is used as the basis for weapons again.

More importantly they were mostly used as upgrades rather than inbuilt abilities, and even in the few cases they came as part of the standard profile it was for named characters.

And also I have seen the 7th and HH USRs lists. They are ridiculous and have many examples of different USRs that do the same thing but slightly different (rending vs breaching, hatred vs zealot, sunder vs armorbane, poison vs fleshbane, reach vs sudden strike, etc). You are simply moving the cognitive load somewhere.

And thematically it makes sense for Space Marine armory to be mostly the same for most models. After all there are only so many ways a bolter can be a bolter. Tyranids though, we don't have standardized sizes and also part of the fun is that Marine players have no idea what our stuff does.

It's very important to keep a cap on the number of USRs, that's definitely true.

And again a Lictor talon is literally twice the length of a warrior talon, that isn't something you represent with an USR but by simply giving it a profile that matches its size. A heavy bolter is a different profile from a bolter, not just a bolter with the Heavy USR.

If the weapon uses the base strength of the model, you've got the opportunity to make the Scything Talons mich stronger than the Warrior version to begin with. But I don't see any issue with slapping a common USR on it either.

Deciding where the cutoffs in the amount of USRs and their respective use-cases is obviously the part that makes or breaks the system. Implement it well and it can be great. Implement it poorly and you make a mess of things. My argument is that, implemented well, it will be a vast improvement.

Part of the issue is that the strenght isn't the only characteristc, and arguably the less important one.

Although I guess there is an argument Tyranid models could and should also have AP and Damage inbuilt into their model profiles*, but I'm unsure if people would be comfortable with Tyranids having 2 additional model characteristics.

*Assuming of course a pre-10th design. 10th makes it irrelevant as bespoke weaponry is the standard in 10th.

But having an USR directly messing with weapon profile seems an easy way to get out of hand.
A lot of weapons in the game are the same weapon downscaled or upscalled and we usually expect those differences to be inbuilt into the profile instead of e.g lasgun and hellguns being the same gun and Tempestus Scions getting Deadly Laser USR to increase the AP.

I mean, really any design paradigm can get out of hand with poor handling. That should be obvious by now.

But assuming what one desires is a reduction in cogitive load and the need to look up everything because everything is bespoke and brings it's own profiles, then a short list of meangful USRs combined with a broad implementation of shared weapon profiles will get you really far.