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.

Think so far one of the problems is the unit cards, not the concept, which is decent, but the fact they have space for a special rule and someone felt obliged to write something in there for every single unit

more things to try and remember, some marginal, some less so. What was wrong with some units just being average Joe Tyranid (or whatever)?

also for me the strategem issue, defined (by me) as nothing thats equipment or standard training should be a strategem - e.g. Grenades, units have them or don't have them. the Strategems should be "higher command" stuff and coordination - e.g. Grenades becomes something any suitable unit can do, with a 6+ effect, the 4+ is the strategem

The issue isn't every unit having a special rule, it's that so many of them are repeated either completely or in slight variations.

Sticky Objectives, Fight on Death, re-roll hit/wound on objective or vs something on an objective, damage reduction, and so on. These shouldn't be bespoke special rules. They should be Universal Special Rules.

But in fairness, lots of units not having those rules, bespoke or USR would also be nice.

 catbarf wrote:
However, the monkey's paw curls one finger...

Blessed are we with invaluable words of wisdom from Master Puretide himself. *gestures the sign of student-nodding-in-profound-introspection-once-found-inattentive*

I'll be playing my first game of 10th soon and TBH I'm not really looking forward to it. I am looking forward to playing again for the first time in a long time and it's nice that GW put out a fully free edition, but I really wish they had stood proud as a miniatures wargaming brand instead of continuing to cut into the MTG market.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The issue isn't every unit having a special rule, it's that so many of them are repeated either completely or in slight variations.

Sticky Objectives, Fight on Death, re-roll hit/wound on objective or vs something on an objective, damage reduction, and so on. These shouldn't be bespoke special rules. They should be Universal Special Rules.

agree many should be USRs, the cards can then have the USR rule added, all with the same name and identical wording unless there is some specific need for slightly different

Heck sometimes they don't even feel like special rules. Eg unit gets +1 save or +1 attack or such. However if no ability in the game then prevents those bonuses from the profile taking effect you can sometimes get the feeling of "why not just improve the base stat and not even have an ability".

Which I think leans into the design space of GW tryign to give every unit "unique flavour" via the abilities even if its utterly pointless to have it as an ability.


When you then couple it having the same ability across the game giving the same bonus with different names; its just even more chaff that makes the game harder to learn.




It honestly feels like somewhere they noted that people liked unique named abilities on models. Which then translated through layers of managers and marketing too a mandate for every unit to have a unique named ability; which then hit the wall of the design team not being totally mad and restricting themselves to a known pool to work from.

It's leaning on that concept of "too much of a good thing is bad" or "Too many cooks spoils the broth".

I don't know about non marine armies. But I think it would be nice, if GW did something for other armies, that they did for eldar now and DE in 9th. First have an idea how an army should play, make the units, rules and rules interactions. And then when the army is prebuild give stuff points. And if we could enter the wish verse, It would also be nice to unglue the different factions of marines from the marine codex. Make DeathWing detachment where DW stuff gets X, Y and Z buff, units costs a specific amount of points , which is different if the same units are taken in a green wing or RW list. And impose limitations. Non non inner circle stuff. Only "ally" can be the RW. The same could be done for RW. Green wing could have access to everything, but everything would cost more.

Then they could do some extra detachment, where lets say if you take 3 masters Azz, Sam and Belial. With special and different rules, maybe more interactions of between the wings (lets say units from the detachments can run "through" each other bases).

I think the same could be done for other factions. A nob heavy bad moon detachment, a "melee" goff army, and then something like a Ghaz super Waagh. All with different rules .

And the best thing, the detachments wouldn't have to be limited to a codex. They could release them in separate book, in a White Dwarf or even on their Community site.
Some narrative seson starts, where a specific tau force faces against a specific tyranid army. and each army gets 1 or 2 new detachments. with its own rules, point costs etc. And if they want to be 100% a-holes the rules can be free, but the point costs locked behind a warhammer+ subscription.

leopard wrote:
Think so far one of the problems is the unit cards, not the concept, which is decent, but the fact they have space for a special rule and someone felt obliged to write something in there for every single unit

more things to try and remember, some marginal, some less so. What was wrong with some units just being average Joe Tyranid (or whatever)?

Well, while I agree that we don't need special rules on every unit, I do see some merit in there being special rules on most units. Or at least a lot of them.

The thing about being an average Joe unit is that it's easy to run into a lack of niche protection. If a unit's whole thing is that it shoots good and dies slow, then it means said unit is in direct competition with any other units whose roles also boil down to shoot good and die slow. If one of those other units shoots better or dies slower point-for-point, then our average Joe unit becomes a second-stringer; redundant and unlikely to see play when you could take the guy doing his job but better instead.

Now if we give Joe a special rule that lets him score better or buff another unit or otherwise contribute beyond shoot good/die slow, then he suddenly has a niche again even if he's not the most efficient good-shooter/slow-die-er in his codex.

Looking at marines, you've got vanguard vets, jump pack assault intercessors, reivers, and until recently assault marines all competing for the niche of deepstriking melee unit. If the only real differences between them are number of attacks and types of weaponry, you're probably going to end up with at least one redundant unit there. But if you give them special rules that let them serve different purposes, you theoretically keep them all relevant.

But that said, I do understand the appeal of having fewer special rules to remember.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The issue isn't every unit having a special rule, it's that so many of them are repeated either completely or in slight variations.

Sticky Objectives, Fight on Death, re-roll hit/wound on objective or vs something on an objective, damage reduction, and so on. These shouldn't be bespoke special rules. They should be Universal Special Rules.

I would add another obvious one - Leadership.

 Overread wrote:

It's hard to pin down because its so insanely variable and because there aren't really any guidelines that you can establish which are universal

I think the mistake is trying to define it by power level. What I've learned over the years is what keeps a community casual has more to do with players being permissive and communicative. What makes an environment casual is a yes first approach. Can I play with the Legends model? Yes. Is this conversion okay? Of course! I'd like to try this loadout on this unit that has a different weapon. Absolutely!

In terms of gameplay, intent beats out precision every time. Talk about distances and what you're trying to do. Say you're screening out the backfield and let your opponent know if they've left a gap. Mindfully place your stuff a certain distance away with the intent of being out of range of something. Not only does this keep the game state clean, but it engages players with one another and gives new players the feeling that you are demonstrating skills they need to acquire more than crushing them for sport. A casual environment is a social relationship and takes work and constant communication just like any other.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Overread wrote:

It's hard to pin down because its so insanely variable and because there aren't really any guidelines that you can establish which are universal

I think the mistake is trying to define it by power level. What I've learned over the years is what keeps a community casual has more to do with players being permissive and communicative. What makes an environment casual is a yes first approach. Can I play with the Legends model? Yes. Is this conversion okay? Of course! I'd like to try this loadout on this unit that has a different weapon. Absolutely!

In terms of gameplay, intent beats out precision every time. Talk about distances and what you're trying to do. Say you're screening out the backfield and let your opponent know if they've left a gap. Mindfully place your stuff a certain distance away with the intent of being out of range of something. Not only does this keep the game state clean, but it engages players with one another and gives new players the feeling that you are demonstrating skills they need to acquire more than crushing them for sport. A casual environment is a social relationship and takes work and constant communication just like any other.

Thing is this works at a local level yes. It however means that its very hard for you to talk to another player group about casual games when the other player group might have an entirely different approach. Nothing wrong in that at all, but 3rd group might take a different approach and soforth. Trying to actually build a rules set around casual is thus insanely complicated.


You have to take a leaf from RPG games in all truth. They are massive social and casual engaging systems. They own that and guess what - its all built on a foundation of logical, tested and balanced game rules. Heck some editions had vast amounts of rules for almost every action you could take. Multiple official books adding even more variety and that's before you hit 3rd party which adds even more. It's all based on a foundation of balanced, structured "rules and laws" and such that establishes how the game works.


Now RPG games have a bonus in that its run through a DM and a skilled DM is able to adapt on the fly to the players. Things too tough; then they can tone back a few encounters; things too easy they can throw something more powerful your way. Too much combat and not enough politics - yep they can adapt for that. Of course some DMs run from the game books only; some almost free form everything. The underlaying principle though is the same - a balanced set of rules.


So even RPG games do the same thing, they just don't need to worry as much about competitive level balance because whilst it does happen; the DM element allows games to adapt. Wargames lack the DM element and most often are built around PVP. Even if its not competitive the structure is still built around combat and still built around PVP. PVE is honestly very rarely done and whilst the Pandemic did give some boosts to some singleplayer PVE game formats; the format in general isn't as much used nor marketed for in wargames. The closest would be re-enactments where its still PVP but where the foundation for the whole game is based on reality in terms of deployments, unit numbers and soforth .





Again we swing back to the element that the best way to pin down casual play when designing a game; is the same as for competitive in establishing a strong foundation of game rules. Now you can easily argue that perhaps we could add rules to that which apply to PVE and casual play specifically; splicing in some elements that just don't feature in the wargame side to represent the more adaptive/varied casual environment.

There are definitely elements of game design that make it more casual friendly. Measurement granularity and the amount of advantages that provides is a big one. Terrain interaction is another. You can definitely make a competitively viable game that plays well in a casual setting if you're really aware of your rules and how natural they are in practice.

Perhaps the better term is "casual appeal". The idea that casual players aren't competing seems to be missing the audience. Casual audiences aren't necessarily opposed to competition; its just a lower commitment or interest in being the king of the hill. After all, games like Fortnite have huge casual audiences that still very much compete in the game despite never being the last one standing in a round.

I think there's a lot players can do to give a competitive game more casual appeal; it just takes work. Cool terrain that's designed in a way to work cleanly with competitive rules is a huge bridge for example. Other player groups might have different expectations, but how often are they going to come into contact outside of tournaments? Even then, cultural exchanges are great ways to spread ideas. My shop went from an extremely cutthroat atmosphere to a substantially more casual one largely from things I pulled from visiting other groups and seeing things that left me very jealous. I've learned a ton of ways to make things cleaner from the competitive side as well. Guest or host, always leave a good impression.

Fortnite gets away with it because the 100-player free-for-all format obfuscates just how small your chances of winning are when you're playing in the same server as some hardcore competitive streamer who you're probably unaware of. If it were a 1v1 duel instead, it would be painfully clear that you and your opponent aren't even really playing the same game - the weaker player would get trounced every time.

That's one of the challenges of designing a 1v1 PVP game. The more skill-based you make a game, the less casual it gets. The only way to address this is to add elements of randomness.

All popular skill-based games that have significant casual appeal rely on a ton of randomness in their design to allow the weaker players to win every once in a while. Earlier editions of 40k had more of this. Recent editions, a lot less.

 Overread wrote:


Thing is this works at a local level yes. It however means that its very hard for you to talk to another player group about casual games when the other player group might have an entirely different approach. Nothing wrong in that at all, but 3rd group might take a different approach and soforth. Trying to actually build a rules set around casual is thus insanely complicated

.

Firstly, usual caveat that 'casual' is not the opposite side of the spectrum to 'competitive'. The opposite of competitive is non-conpetitive, the opposite of casual is serious.

Yes, 'casual' can mean different things to different groups. 'Less intense games' covers a lot of ground. As you say, this is fine. I'd argue it doesn't need to be 'universal' either - local variations is like regional differences when you travel. Makes things interesting.

However I think you are making a mistake in trying to define 'casual' around a rules set. Game Mechanics don't inherently make a game casual.or not. They're just resolution methods. Any game, regardless of mechsni s csn be played casually, seriously or weaponised to.bludgeon everyone else.

EDIT: Hmm, Or when you talk about 'rules' are you referring to the 'social contract' (ie behaviours, and approaches wtc) rather than the mechanics? In which case, bar high level generalities, once you get into the weeds, it can very much mean different things to different people. But as above, this isn't necessarily a problem.in and of itself.

 Overread wrote:


You have to take a leaf from RPG games in all truth. They are massive social and casual engaging systems. They own that and guess what - its all built on a foundation of logical, tested and balanced game rules. Heck some editions had vast amounts of rules for almost every action you could take. Multiple official books adding even more variety and that's before you hit 3rd party which adds even more. It's all based on a foundation of balanced, structured "rules and laws" and such that establishes how the game works.

Now RPG games have a bonus in that its run through a DM and a skilled DM is able to adapt on the fly to the players. Things too tough; then they can tone back a few encounters; things too easy they can throw something more powerful your way. Too much combat and not enough politics - yep they can adapt for that. Of course some DMs run from the game books only; some almost free form everything. The underlaying principle though is the same - a balanced set of rules.

its all built on a foundation of logical, tested and balanced game rules.

It's all based on a foundation of balanced, structured "rules and laws" and such that establishes how the game works.

Have you ever read an rpg? Mate, this take is absurd. Rpgs are not balanced at all. Most are at best, poorly written snd very easily abused - just like wargames. Google rpg or munchkin power gamers. There's always a 'best build' and there's always some munchkin willing to stomp all over their fellows for their own gratification.

The sole reason rpgs work is because of the shock absorber that is a good GM that reins in the players, gets everyone on the same page and provides appropriate challenges.

Aka game crafting. Which is what I am always talking about when it comes to wargames as well.

Other thing to point out is modern rpgs evolved out of wargames. They literally share the same dna. There's no reason approaches in one are not transferable to the other.

 Overread wrote:


So even RPG games do the same thing, they just don't need to worry as much about competitive level balance because whilst it does happen; the DM element allows games to adapt. Wargames lack the DM element and most often are built around PVP. Even if its not competitive the structure is still built around combat and still built around PVP. PVE is honestly very rarely done and whilst the Pandemic did give some boosts to some singleplayer PVE game formats; the format in general isn't as much used nor marketed for in wargames. The closest would be re-enactments where its still PVP but where the foundation for the whole game is based on reality in terms of deployments, unit numbers and soforth .

Wargames lack the DM element and most often are built around PVP.

Not true. 40k originated as a game with a gm and plenty historical games make room for one too, even to this day. And just because the rulebook doesn't mention one, there's no reason you can't hsve one either in a game of 40k. We've been playing this way for ten years now (two of my guys have been playing this way since the 70s).

Pvp doesn't exclude collaboration.

 Overread wrote:


Again we swing back to the element that the best way to pin down casual play when designing a game; is the same as for competitive in establishing a strong foundation of game rules. Now you can easily argue that perhaps we could add rules to that which apply to PVE and casual play specifically; splicing in some elements that just don't feature in the wargame side to represent the more adaptive/varied casual environment.

It's about the attitude and approach, not the rules. You can play any game casually.

Very true, all wargames by their nature are competitive. so the casual attitude with the level of focus on it is different.

for me a good hard fought close game is the best. if it is to easy one way or the other one player probably isn't having a good time.

It is just like the bad form of "seal clubbing" a new player making them have an awful experience and never wanting to play the game again.

It goes back to what was said earlier, if both players have the same expectations about what kind of game they are having it will be more enjoyable for both.

With 40K in particular. because i play so many different games that give me a different set of game mechanics. the IGOUGO system doesn't bother me. for me 40K has always been the fast & simple army battle game-move/shoot/assault you have 5-7 turn to take down your foe or capture objectives. if i lose but put up a good fight it was still a good game(some of the best in my experience). i do not expect chess, or a "balanced tournament game" when i play.

I expect epic battles, and thematic armies that play to the lore. that do things because that is how they should do things, even if it isn't the smartest thing(like khorne berserkers charging a Talos pain engine in 5th ed).

With 40K specifically because it was never originally meant to be a tournament system it does have that RPG element, at least with the older editions, so if you build up a local community with those expectations it is a fantastic game that doesn't run out of control from abuse. 20+ years on and i am still playing it and still enjoying it with an edition thats been out of GWs wheelhouse since 2012.

This type of thread has popped up here every edition since I joined Dakka, so no.

Complaining about new editions is an integral part of the soul of 40k, and that is solidly intact.

I can't explain what it is, but something with the combination of how 40k is nowadays just feels... bad. I played a game yesterday for a narrative campaign, and while the game itself wasn't bad (managed to turn an early loss into an almost win at the very end), it just felt miserable to play from the very beginning through the final turn. Again, I can't point to one thing in particular but just a combination of the way missions work, the terrain you "need" to use, the way units behave, the whole package just feels terrible to me. It doesn't feel at all enjoyable or like a fun wargame anymore; it feels like some bastardization that somehow manages to mesh the worst aspects of various games together.

To each their own, obviously, but I can say for myself something about this edition just feels horrible compared to everything that came before it. Could be that they're trying a new approach to it, and will refine it later with 11th and beyond, but it definitely no longer feels like the fun, engaging game that it used to.

Wayniac wrote:


To each their own, obviously, but I can say for myself something about this edition just feels horrible compared to everything that came before it. Could be that they're trying a new approach to it, and will refine it later with 11th and beyond, but it definitely no longer feels like the fun, engaging game that it used to.

11th will be a 10.5, and what they will probably do as a "fix" is give us back a few of the equipment/ unit options we lost- it will feel like we're spoiled for choice after 10th. They'll go back to costed equipment- or at least costs for some upgrades. They might add something to terrain rules. They might add a psychic phase. And that's about it.

But it won't stop them from selling us all the dexes again, and it's a 50/50 shot whether they'll nuke 10th's bespoke Crusade rules again; if the core rules are close enough, they won't HAVE to, but they might CHOOSE to, just to bump the odds that folks will purchase new dexes.

Wayniac wrote:
I can't explain what it is, but something with the combination of how 40k is nowadays just feels... bad. I played a game yesterday for a narrative campaign, and while the game itself wasn't bad (managed to turn an early loss into an almost win at the very end), it just felt miserable to play from the very beginning through the final turn. Again, I can't point to one thing in particular but just a combination of the way missions work, the terrain you "need" to use, the way units behave, the whole package just feels terrible to me. It doesn't feel at all enjoyable or like a fun wargame anymore; it feels like some bastardization that somehow manages to mesh the worst aspects of various games together.

Are you missing thinking about dozens of strats (yours & theirs)?
Do you really miss fiddling about with pts for various gear?
Are you missing being able to pick your own perfect secondaries? (in general, maybe not for your campaign)
How about characters mostly lacking any protection unless they're leading units?
Is it the random nature of the mission deck?
Why do you feel you "need" any particular type of terrain? How is this different than whatever you were doing back in June, at the end of 9th?

ccs wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
I can't explain what it is, but something with the combination of how 40k is nowadays just feels... bad. I played a game yesterday for a narrative campaign, and while the game itself wasn't bad (managed to turn an early loss into an almost win at the very end), it just felt miserable to play from the very beginning through the final turn. Again, I can't point to one thing in particular but just a combination of the way missions work, the terrain you "need" to use, the way units behave, the whole package just feels terrible to me. It doesn't feel at all enjoyable or like a fun wargame anymore; it feels like some bastardization that somehow manages to mesh the worst aspects of various games together.

Are you missing thinking about dozens of strats (yours & theirs)?
Do you really miss fiddling about with pts for various gear?
Are you missing being able to pick your own perfect secondaries? (in general, maybe not for your campaign)
How about characters mostly lacking any protection unless they're leading units?
Is it the random nature of the mission deck?
Why do you feel you "need" any particular type of terrain? How is this different than whatever you were doing back in June, at the end of 9th?

Definitely not missing a ton of stratagems, but it's all the rest. Characters being basically useless unless they're leading a unit (auras were bad too but this swung too much in the opposite direction IMO), the default style of play being drawing cards from a mission deck, terrain needing to be L-shaped ruins or shooting dominates, and so on.

Like I said, I can't point to just one thing. But it absolutely feels like a step backwards at best, and plodding forward in the wrong direction at worst, especially when compared to Sigmar's design. Even in things as simple as white dwarf content; AOS is having a narrative campaign published (that even supports playing Warcry as part of it), plus a random battle plan generator in this latest issue. Interesting things like that, which you don't see done at all for 40k (although the Bunker missions they've put in the last few issues are good, just ignored because people seem to think secondary objectives are some key piece of gameplay)

It's the whole package.

These are all symptoms of the mission design sickness going into 10th ed. It was designed by tourney organizers to fit their game style and (?coincidentally?) correspond to sets of terrain they sell. I've done some play testing to make sure I'm not using rose coloured glasses or going sour grapes. I've played about 4 games using 5th&6th ed missions and current rules. While I prefer the simplicity of 5ths scoring; I recognize the value progressive scoring brought in 6th to reward aggressive players committing to table presence. However in all cases the games are a lot funner for me which seemed to confirm my original feeling.

ccs wrote:
Do you really miss fiddling about with pts for various gear?

Yes.

 vipoid wrote:

ccs wrote:
Do you really miss fiddling about with pts for various gear?

Yes.

WDYM, Dark eldar had anyways no upgrades with points anymore

 Gibblets wrote:
These are all symptoms of the mission design sickness going into 10th ed. It was designed by tourney organizers to fit their game style and (?coincidentally?) correspond to sets of terrain they sell. I've done some play testing to make sure I'm not using rose coloured glasses or going sour grapes. I've played about 4 games using 5th&6th ed missions and current rules. While I prefer the simplicity of 5ths scoring; I recognize the value progressive scoring brought in 6th to reward aggressive players committing to table presence. However in all cases the games are a lot funner for me which seemed to confirm my original feeling.

Leviathan Deck being "the" way to play is probably one of the biggest problems, yes. But not the only one. Ironically also probably the easiest for me to look at changing since I play in a very laid back store where people don't feel the only way to play is with the deck. Doesn't fix the need for LOS blocking terrain everywhere though because the foundation of the system is so poorly designed.

How they managed to take steps back with a cool idea (Three Ways to Play and GHB/CA having ways for all of them) I'll never know. It's bad enough that previously Chapter Approved and still the General's Handbook went from "here's some neat ideas to use or inspire you" to "this season's tournament pack" like this was a fething MOBA/eSport, but 10th edition made it even worse by moving it out of a book into a deck of cards. At least on the Sigmar front they've moved some of that to White Dwarf (last two issues have a narrative campaign, with one more issue for it; each "phase" has 3 different battleplans in it and the campaign is designed for smaller boards and up to 1500 points at that, and the current issue has an open battleplan generator so you never have to play the same game twice); I doubt we'll ever see anything of the sort for 40k. The Bunker missions for 40k are interesting, at least, which is more than I can say for the AOS ones which so far are all just reprints of those lame "refight" missions from like the Ghal Maraz books early on in AOS' life (Nagash vs. Archaeon etc.), but at the same time those should have been part of the default rules. It still amazes me that 40k 10th edition shipped with one single mission that wasn't Leviathan, excluding the weird Crusade ones I guess, so that they literally expect you to play the tournament missions as the "normal" game all the time, whether or not you have any interest in tournament play or not.

I get the distinct impression that AOS is being the more creative outlet, while 40k is kept more traditional/slow-changing because it's been the cash cow and is where the most serious tournament players gravitate. Even the AOS tournaments I've heard are way friendlier than the sweaties that play 40k.

 vipoid wrote:

ccs wrote:
Do you really miss fiddling about with pts for various gear?

Yes.

I found some upgrade parts were either "always" or "never" in taking and some units could get a lot of non-visual upgrades that would make them more complicated to field. I felt like that had been reducing somewhat over the years as armies got bigger and more models went from "Jack of all trades has upgrades to boost everything" into "this unit is a specialist forX because Y and Z are covered by other units".

That said looking at Tyranids the things I miss are more granular weapon options on a LOT of models. Those I DO miss not being varied in points. Having the option of a gun that's just better but costs more; having the option of different close combat weapons for specific focus (poor warriors lost ALL their options there). Heck why take Spinefists now? They cost exactly the same as all the better guns in the line-up. In the past you took them because they were cheap and let you swarm and more bodies was more important than the gun stats. Right now with equal pointing you've no reason not to give units their statistically best options each and every single time.

It would be an ideal setup if GW models had zero optional weapons - ergo if they worked like a lot of the competing model brands where each model has 1 pose 1 weapon and that's it.
To me one of the hallmarks of a GW game was the optional weapons. It was being able to take a single model and equip it for a situation. You can still do that, but because points rae now removed as a factor there's no pressure to take a "weaker" weapon. I can't field more of a weaker weapon or allow for me to field more of something else that's good; its just a flat out weaker option.

 vipoid wrote:

ccs wrote:
Do you really miss fiddling about with pts for various gear?

Yes.

Converting some beastmen Fellgore Ravagers™ recently, I pondered for two seconds whether I should include a plasma pistol, heavy close combat weapon, and magic staff. Then I realised that any build other than including all of them was just objectively worse and there was no reason not to load up the expendable chaff unit with upgrades.

wargear costing points allows for cheaper, less good and more costly, better options and then the player to take the balance they want

and not feel obliged to stick maximum CIB on a crisis suit because without points, why wouldn't you?

you remove the option to say run 8 better equipped marines over ten with basic loadouts

you perhaps need some of the more trivial stuff to be baked in, and maybe some of the lower cost stuff to be "any one of the following" baked in, I would however suggest that the ability to stick sponson weapon upgrades on armour should have a cost, ditto some of the weapon configurations on knights etc.

There is something to be said for "you can have one of these in a squad for 2 points" just being baked into the stats

 Overread wrote:

Heck why take Spinefists now? They cost exactly the same as all the better guns in the line-up. In the past you took them because they were cheap and let you swarm and more bodies was more important than the gun stats. Right now with equal pointing you've no reason not to give units their statistically best options each and every single time.

But spinefists are the mathematically better option, everyone playing endless swarm is spamming spinefists.

That mathhammer issue aside, with Tyranids different point costs is thematically weird. With other factions a more expensive weapon can be justified with higher logistics related costs and/or higher rarity.

Tyranids literally birth their guns according to their needs, thematically point costs doesn't make much sense for them. If devourers were strictly better then you would only see devourers in the lore.

 Tyran wrote:

 Overread wrote:

Heck why take Spinefists now? They cost exactly the same as all the better guns in the line-up. In the past you took them because they were cheap and let you swarm and more bodies was more important than the gun stats. Right now with equal pointing you've no reason not to give units their statistically best options each and every single time.

But spinefists are the mathematically better option, everyone playing endless swarm is spamming spinefists.

That mathhammer issue aside, with Tyranids different point costs is thematically weird. With other factions a more expensive weapon can be justified with higher logistics related costs and/or higher rarity.

Tyranids literally birth their guns according to their needs, thematically point costs doesn't make much sense for them. If devourers were strictly better then you would only see devourers in the lore.

The points cost for tyranids represents increases in biomass required to make a specific thing.

I still thematically prefer Tyranid guns to have a side grade nature.

Even when it comes to blatantly larger and more powerful weapons like venom cannons... Well they are larger and heavier, that is a drawback that should be represented on the rules in addition to point costs to represent the added biomass cost.