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.

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:
i'd much rather see the datasheet get split in three so each can be balanced individually. doubt any of the three are going to have entirely static layouts, so imo this is a good change (the leman russ changes seem to have worked well for guard). anyone doomsaying over this is overreacting

Dudeface wrote:
In response to the redacted codex rumour from valrak, new video out today:

Krieg looking like next year, big new rules for kill team coming, new necronunda version on the way and redacted is agents for summer still.

KT 3rd edition is probably on the horizon. felt that way for a little while now. Agents codex was already rumored and discussed in the thread

new necromunda version/edition is neat; had some thoughts about that in the other thread

It's not "Oh, Crisis Suits are ruined forever!"
It's "GW did something really dumb with points and army construction this edition, and they're doubling down on it instead of changing it for the better."

Nice illegal nonWYSIWYG battlesuits here GeeDubs

As someone who gets decision paralysis assembling every kit with options and hates magnets, I kinda get where's that decison coming from. But I still believe they should prioritize the option to let people customize.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:
i'd much rather see the datasheet get split in three so each can be balanced individually. doubt any of the three are going to have entirely static layouts, so imo this is a good change (the leman russ changes seem to have worked well for guard). anyone doomsaying over this is overreacting

Dudeface wrote:
In response to the redacted codex rumour from valrak, new video out today:

Krieg looking like next year, big new rules for kill team coming, new necronunda version on the way and redacted is agents for summer still.

KT 3rd edition is probably on the horizon. felt that way for a little while now. Agents codex was already rumored and discussed in the thread

new necromunda version/edition is neat; had some thoughts about that in the other thread

It's not "Oh, Crisis Suits are ruined forever!"
It's "GW did something really dumb with points and army construction this edition, and they're doubling down on it instead of changing it for the better."

I'd argue this is better for the game than simply doing nothing and leaving there an obviously best option and flexibility to ignore the rest.

Right, but you could instead give different points for different wargear options on the same datasheet.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Right, but you could instead give different points for different wargear options on the same datasheet.

Yes but that's very evidently off the cards for this edition.

Dudeface wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Right, but you could instead give different points for different wargear options on the same datasheet.

Yes but that's very evidently off the cards for this edition.

Hence, doubling down on something dumb.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Right, but you could instead give different points for different wargear options on the same datasheet.

Or you could actually carve out roles for things to exist.

Frankly, if they left things as they were there'd be gripes about "oh but there's no option to take a bunch of them! Farsight isn't represented!" or "Why would I take anything else, since there's no points?" or "Why would I take anything else, since this option is so wildly obviously a better choice even with points?".

This way? There's 3x Crisis units to pick from. You can pick the one you want to include, then build the rest of the force around that choice.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Right, but you could instead give different points for different wargear options on the same datasheet.

but we're talking about 10th edition, which explicitly doesn't do that. making this the hill you want to die on, instead of engaging with the edition as it exists, is pretty pointless. if you don't care about the state of the rules this edition, and the very direct goal that GW has stated for it which includes removing points costs, then why are you talking about it? if you don't care for the rules in the current edition, can't you just play 9th edition? or 7th edition, or 3rd edition? if we're talking about 10th edition, you should talk about it in the context of 10th edition, and not the theoretical game you wish 10th edition was

 Kanluwen wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Right, but you could instead give different points for different wargear options on the same datasheet.

Or you could actually carve out roles for things to exist.

Frankly, if they left things as they were there'd be gripes about "oh but there's no option to take a bunch of them! Farsight isn't represented!" or "Why would I take anything else, since there's no points?" or "Why would I take anything else, since this option is so wildly obviously a better choice even with points?".

This way? There's 3x Crisis units to pick from. You can pick the one you want to include, then build the rest of the force around that choice.

Give a detachment that makes Crisis Suits Batleline. 36 suits plus Commanders should be enough.

Why take anything else since there's no points? That's the problem.

Why would I take a choice other than the obviously superior choice even with points? Adjust the points so it's no longer an obvious choice.

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Right, but you could instead give different points for different wargear options on the same datasheet.

but we're talking about 10th edition, which explicitly doesn't do that. making this the hill you want to die on, instead of engaging with the edition as it exists, is pretty pointless. if you don't care about the state of the rules this edition, and the very direct goal that GW has stated for it which includes removing points costs, then why are you talking about it? if you don't care for the rules in the current edition, can't you just play 9th edition? or 7th edition, or 3rd edition? if we're talking about 10th edition, you should talk about it in the context of 10th edition, and not the theoretical game you wish 10th edition was

I play at a GW primarily, so I don't have the chance to play older editions.

And I don't see why I can't point out flaws with the current edition.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Right, but you could instead give different points for different wargear options on the same datasheet.

Or you could actually carve out roles for things to exist.

Frankly, if they left things as they were there'd be gripes about "oh but there's no option to take a bunch of them! Farsight isn't represented!" or "Why would I take anything else, since there's no points?" or "Why would I take anything else, since this option is so wildly obviously a better choice even with points?".

This way? There's 3x Crisis units to pick from. You can pick the one you want to include, then build the rest of the force around that choice.

Give a detachment that makes Crisis Suits Batleline. 36 suits plus Commanders should be enough.

Funny how you're down for that, but were seemingly against doing the same for Infiltrators or Incursors.

Why take anything else since there's no points? That's the problem.

Why would I take a choice other than the obviously superior choice even with points? Adjust the points so it's no longer an obvious choice.

The fact that we have years, if not decades of proof to the contrary makes this a bold claim.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Right, but you could instead give different points for different wargear options on the same datasheet.

Or you could actually carve out roles for things to exist.

Frankly, if they left things as they were there'd be gripes about "oh but there's no option to take a bunch of them! Farsight isn't represented!" or "Why would I take anything else, since there's no points?" or "Why would I take anything else, since this option is so wildly obviously a better choice even with points?".

This way? There's 3x Crisis units to pick from. You can pick the one you want to include, then build the rest of the force around that choice.

Give a detachment that makes Crisis Suits Batleline. 36 suits plus Commanders should be enough.

Funny how you're down for that, but were seemingly against doing the same for Infiltrators or Incursors.

Why take anything else since there's no points? That's the problem.

Why would I take a choice other than the obviously superior choice even with points? Adjust the points so it's no longer an obvious choice.

The fact that we have years, if not decades of proof to the contrary makes this a bold claim.

I'm not sure I ever posted anything against Detachments switching Battleline. I might very well have said something along the lines of "Switching something to Battleline is NOT a freebie," because it very much has rules impact. But Detachments have rules. Changing Battleline could be one of them.

As for points, it'd be neat if every option was equally balanced against each other without them. But if something ends up being too strong/weak, you could adjust points for that alone. It's another lever to pull.
Historically, GW hasn't been good about it, but you can at least look to other wargames and see it's very much possible to do it well.

You could make that claim years ago maybe, but now? It does not seem to be the way people interact with tabletop games. Even ones cheaper than GW, the initial "interest posts" always seem to be "what's the best thing?" rather than "how can I make this thing I like work?".

It should be interesting to see:

1. How much flexibility each Crisis Suit datasheet provides?
2. Do the individual datasheet Abilities make them compelling in their roles?

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Uh, is this something new? The local ITC guy says Crisis have had 3 fixed loadouts since the start of the edition...?

He is mistaken.

 Kanluwen wrote:
You could make that claim years ago maybe, but now? It does not seem to be the way people interact with tabletop games. Even ones cheaper than GW, the initial "interest posts" always seem to be "what's the best thing?" rather than "how can I make this thing I like work?".

Why would the question need to be different? It's the answer that matters.

"What's the best Crisis Suit Loadout?"
Cyclic Ion Blasters with Shields.

"What's the best weapon upgrade for Steel Warriors?"
Depends what you want the unit to do. Autocannon is a good general pick, for Pinning; while the Flamer has It Burns! which is always good, but it's also short ranged. The more expensive options are the Missile Launcher and the Magma Cannon, both of which have Targeting Systems so you can split your fire, which is good because they have different targeting priorities. Missile Launcher has less raw damage, but great range; while the Magma has the same range as your standard guns and great damage.

 JNAProductions wrote:
It's not "Oh, Crisis Suits are ruined forever!"
It's "GW did something really dumb with points and army construction this edition, and they're doubling down on it instead of changing it for the better."

I think rather the reality is that costing battlesuit gear never worked. This gives abilities associated with loadouts that will be more interesting than "I take the best option and make sure I magnetize everything so I can switch out my weapons on the next pass".

If someone wants to take a crack at making a battlesuit datasheet that is fully balanced with costs for each weapon I'm sure some enterprising math hammer enthusiasts can validate it.

In either case - get used to it. Splitting sheets is how GW will eliminate units with mismatched gear and points.

So in light of the way that GW is handling equipment in 10th, regardless of whether that is good or bad it is how they are doing it, this is a very good idea and should be applied to many different data sheets in the game.

Now if my friend wants to use his flamer battlesuits, he is not paying the points premium for the competitive meta ion blasters to do so. This makes sense for many many data sheets that have wildly different equipment profiles like the D-Cannon v Shadow Weavers, or the IG field artillery guns, or even the Thousand Sons flamers rubrics v. bolter rubrics (who should be significantly cheaper than the flamers) and I am sure there are many many more.

Just my thoughts

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
It's not "Oh, Crisis Suits are ruined forever!"
It's "GW did something really dumb with points and army construction this edition, and they're doubling down on it instead of changing it for the better."

I think rather the reality is that costing battlesuit gear never worked. This gives abilities associated with loadouts that will be more interesting than "I take the best option and make sure I magnetize everything so I can switch out my weapons on the next pass".

If someone wants to take a crack at making a battlesuit datasheet that is fully balanced with costs for each weapon I'm sure some enterprising math hammer enthusiasts can validate it.

In either case - get used to it. Splitting sheets is how GW will eliminate units with mismatched gear and points.

This is knda where I'm at. I like the customizability, but there's too many options, and they're all so varied that trying to balancing against each other was something of a fools errand.

If this had happened in any other edition besides the one actively gutting options and removing choices, i'd support it. Here I'm... wary.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
You could make that claim years ago maybe, but now? It does not seem to be the way people interact with tabletop games. Even ones cheaper than GW, the initial "interest posts" always seem to be "what's the best thing?" rather than "how can I make this thing I like work?".

Why would the question need to be different? It's the answer that matters.

"What's the best Crisis Suit Loadout?"
Cyclic Ion Blasters with Shields.

"What's the best weapon upgrade for Steel Warriors?"
Depends what you want the unit to do. Autocannon is a good general pick, for Pinning; while the Flamer has It Burns! which is always good, but it's also short ranged. The more expensive options are the Missile Launcher and the Magma Cannon, both of which have Targeting Systems so you can split your fire, which is good because they have different targeting priorities. Missile Launcher has less raw damage, but great range; while the Magma has the same range as your standard guns and great damage.

Agree that would have been better but as other say, not sure it's realistic here. Consolidated profiles would also work, "anti big thing" and "anti small thing" profiles and you use the relevant weapon bits to represent them. But I suspect that might annoy more people than what they did do.

One of the big issues is that your stuck playing in the unit design that GW came up with and frankly GW sucks at unit design. Why would I want to run a flamer and burst cannon together or a plasma and missile pod? They have different roles and so your stuck playing to the strength of the weakest link or your effectively gimped your units ability to function (needing to be in flamer range or else your spending a lot of points for a burst cannons worth of shooting).

Paying for wargear worked and having cheap load outs was a viable thing vs going with heavy firepower setups which costed more points and thus made them less expendable. Trying to force a power level system wrapped in a point value package doesn't work in a game with load out options. Instead of seeing the flaw of no wargear costs, they decide to remove the wargear options.... Real big brain thinking going on in Nottingham....

Balance or no balance, this feels driven more by the legal team than anything else. Crisis Suits were designed as a customizable unit and this spits in the face of their original purpose. If I wanted to play a game where units had no loadout options, I'd play Warmachine...

...oh wait.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Balance or no balance, this feels driven more by the legal team than anything else. Crisis Suits were designed as a customizable unit and this spits in the face of their original purpose. If I wanted to play a game where units had no loadout options, I'd play Warmachine...

...oh wait.

the kit is still customizable. there's three paths to take for it, but even within that, there's more choice than most modern kits have

I'm yet to see if I can equip 3 BCs or 3 Flamers apiece or if I'm forced to run a specific loadout or whatever this thing means.

I do like the specialization aspect from a fluffly angle, but I still think this is quite a weird move to say the least.

My biggest question right now is if they've dropped the number of weapons down to 2 per suit, as the models shown in the article only seem to have a max of 2 each. Unless they've gone for the option to give one suit 2 burst, 1 flamer, another 2 flamer, 1 burst, and the last 1 of each as that's what the kit gives.....

warl0rdb0b wrote:
My biggest question right now is if they've dropped the number of weapons down to 2 per suit, as the models shown in the article only seem to have a max of 2 each. Unless they've gone for the option to give one suit 2 burst, 1 flamer, another 2 flamer, 1 burst, and the last 1 of each as that's what the kit gives.....

Those are stock images.

I certainly don't have any suits equipped how GWs just shown them.
But so long as the Legends entry allows for how my suits are equipped I'm fine.

warl0rdb0b wrote:
My biggest question right now is if they've dropped the number of weapons down to 2 per suit, as the models shown in the article only seem to have a max of 2 each. Unless they've gone for the option to give one suit 2 burst, 1 flamer, another 2 flamer, 1 burst, and the last 1 of each as that's what the kit gives.....

When Tau originally came out it was 2 weapons and 1 system hard point, somewhere along the line this just became 3 hard points for whatever.

Wouldn’t be surprised if the new unit layouts have gone back to 2 weapons and 1 system. They want the systems to actually be used.

Not to mention that rules reflect lore and they've been unlocking more hard points progressively available as editions go on, would be awkward to jump back a few squares back again.

If it's impossible to balance Crisis Suits with variable equipment, how come the Commanders retained the ability to mix weapons..?

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Balance or no balance, this feels driven more by the legal team than anything else. Crisis Suits were designed as a customizable unit and this spits in the face of their original purpose. If I wanted to play a game where units had no loadout options, I'd play Warmachine...

...oh wait.

What has that got to do with the legal team?