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.

 catbarf wrote:
I used flamers in 8th because they were better than plasma guns against my buddies' GEQs.

I used grenade launchers on my Veterans because they were dirt cheap and put out a decent amount of firepower. Plasma guns were too expensive on a BS3+ platform. Triple meltaguns was better for economically killing vehicles. Cost provided a disincentive for using the most powerful option, imagine that.

If I wanted to spam Scion Command Squads as special weapon teams, I'd have taken plasma guns. Good thing there was more to the game than that.

To be blunt, Fezzik, you're demonstrating why a hypercompetitive lens doesn't produce good design. The right solution to an unbalanced game state isn't to just delete all the options except the absolute most efficient ones, it's to address the imbalance so all the options are worth considering, and quash those unintended exploits like using Command Squads as four-man murder squads.

If that's blunt, than here's Honest: I'm not competitive. I literally have lost a lot more games than I've won. Nor am I a designer on GW's staff. But I did get started in 7th, a literal week before 8th dropped, and bought a Scion start collecting box. As I had a dream of actually winning a game at some point, I tried to understand the rules and thought rightly, that the best advantage I could reasonably achieve with Scions was a rapid early game strike force, that was equiped to take any number of threats. I don't want to say that the Michael Jordan of 40k can't win with just flamers, meltas, Grenade Launchers, and FRFSRF, but I will say that the idea of this thread is about Guard being bloated. Now krak profiles are S9 Dd3, which I can't speak to the math on how that shakes out compared to their old S6 dd3, when the toughest thing in the game was T8. So I'll just give it to you. Flamers are now awesome, and guardsman are totally not bloated. GW has a very good faction, and guard are awesome.

The right solution to an unbalanced game state isn't to just delete all the options except the absolute most efficient ones, it's to address the imbalance so all the options are worth considering

Well... I'm generally not fond of removing or consolidating options. But that said, 40k does sometimes have an issue where options that made sense at one point in time stop being supported by the core rules and thus it becomes harder to find a niche for them.

Like, look at how grav weapons went from being this quirky option that interacted with the vehicle damage chart to being a generic gun-with-ap that sort of nudges up against other weapons roles.

That's not to say that I'm advocating for dropping grenade launchers or grav guns, but:
A. Ideally, each weapon would have a niche.
B. Finding that niche can become more difficult as editions change.
C. I think 40k does have a habit of sometimes making more bespoke weapons or units than are really needed, and sometimes it's okay to consolidate a few of those where you can.

Like, I want wych weapons to be a thing again, but I'd also be okay with them all getting rolled into a single "wych weapon" statline instead of making gauntlets, impalers, and razorflails into their own almost-identical variations of each other. If GW wanted to take the time to find a real niche for each of those weapons and give them flavorful, distinctive rules, that's great too, but failing that, I think I might prefer they all be lumped together as "wych weapons" rather than having hydra gauntlets be stuck as worse razorflails or whatever.

If you knew anything about Guard, Fezzik, you would know that Plasma Guns don't have the number of shots to be useful against infantry compared to flamers or grenade launchers.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

The right solution to an unbalanced game state isn't to just delete all the options except the absolute most efficient ones, it's to address the imbalance so all the options are worth considering

Well... I'm generally not fond of removing or consolidating options. But that said, 40k does sometimes have an issue where options that made sense at one point in time stop being supported by the core rules and thus it becomes harder to find a niche for them.

Like, look at how grav weapons went from being this quirky option that interacted with the vehicle damage chart to being a generic gun-with-ap that sort of nudges up against other weapons roles.

That's not to say that I'm advocating for dropping grenade launchers or grav guns, but:
A. Ideally, each weapon would have a niche.
B. Finding that niche can become more difficult as editions change.
C. I think 40k does have a habit of sometimes making more bespoke weapons or units than are really needed, and sometimes it's okay to consolidate a few of those where you can.

Like, I want wych weapons to be a thing again, but I'd also be okay with them all getting rolled into a single "wych weapon" statline instead of making gauntlets, impalers, and razorflails into their own almost-identical variations of each other. If GW wanted to take the time to find a real niche for each of those weapons and give them flavorful, distinctive rules, that's great too, but failing that, I think I might prefer they all be lumped together as "wych weapons" rather than having hydra gauntlets be stuck as worse razorflails or whatever.

I'm fine with SOME consolidation.
Power Weapons don't really need to be split into Axe, Sword, Maul... They're all one-handed, moderate-size melee weapons with a powerfield.

But Plasma, Melta, Grenade Launchers... They should be distinct.
Even if the niche held by Launchers is just "Cheap but reasonably effective special weapon" and all the others are better, but more expensive.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I'm fine with SOME consolidation.
Power Weapons don't really need to be split into Axe, Sword, Maul... They're all one-handed, moderate-size melee weapons with a powerfield.

But Plasma, Melta, Grenade Launchers... They should be distinct.
Even if the niche held by Launchers is just "Cheap but reasonably effective special weapon" and all the others are better, but more expensive.

Fair. Agreed. Gosh making wargear "free" was an awkward choice.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I'm fine with SOME consolidation.
Power Weapons don't really need to be split into Axe, Sword, Maul... They're all one-handed, moderate-size melee weapons with a powerfield.

But Plasma, Melta, Grenade Launchers... They should be distinct.
Even if the niche held by Launchers is just "Cheap but reasonably effective special weapon" and all the others are better, but more expensive.

Fair. Agreed. Gosh making wargear "free" was an awkward choice.

You mean a terrible choice.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
If that's blunt, than here's Honest: I'm not competitive. I literally have lost a lot more games than I've won. Nor am I a designer on GW's staff. But I did get started in 7th, a literal week before 8th dropped, and bought a Scion start collecting box. As I had a dream of actually winning a game at some point, I tried to understand the rules and thought rightly, that the best advantage I could reasonably achieve with Scions was a rapid early game strike force, that was equiped to take any number of threats. I don't want to say that the Michael Jordan of 40k can't win with just flamers, meltas, Grenade Launchers, and FRFSRF, but I will say that the idea of this thread is about Guard being bloated. Now krak profiles are S9 Dd3, which I can't speak to the math on how that shakes out compared to their old S6 dd3, when the toughest thing in the game was T8. So I'll just give it to you. Flamers are now awesome, and guardsman are totally not bloated. GW has a very good faction, and guard are awesome.

So you explicitly built a force to win, got boned by bad balance and lost a lot, and that means you are not a competitive player when you suggest deleting all except the most competitively optimal options.

Okay.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
But that said, 40k does sometimes have an issue where options that made sense at one point in time stop being supported by the core rules and thus it becomes harder to find a niche for them.

Correct, but that isn't the case here.

Grenade launchers: Versatile, effective on the move, effective out to maximum range. A little bit of extra firepower for a squad that wants to support the midfield and doesn't warrant massive investment.
Flamers: Short-ranged anti-infantry, optimal against hordes, poor against armor. A specialized anti-infantry and specifically anti-horde assault weapon.
Meltaguns: Short-ranged anti-tank, useless against infantry, excellent against armor. The AT counterpart to the flamer.
Sniper rifles: Long-ranged anti-character. Good for backfield camping and plinking characters out of units.
Plasma guns: Anti-heavy-infantry, armor-piercing, expensive. Not enough volume of fire to deal with hordes, not damaging enough for anti-tank, needs close range for optimal effect, and expensive, but still effective against a variety of targets the premium MEQ killer.

Those are all pretty distinct roles and all are still mechanically supported by the game, even if you throw out varying points costs and have to massage the stats to get them to line up. I do think it would be easier to balance, and more thematic, if the centuries-old irreplaceable plasma guns were effective but also expensive, but it seems that ship has sailed. At least for now.

Like JNAProductions said it's a different situation from having multiple melee weapons that are all redundant in role and do pretty much the same thing, and that's where I think you could stand to consolidate- exactly what flavor of power weapon the sergeant carrying is a lot less impactful, and more difficult to tell at a glance, than what special weapon the squad is carrying.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

The right solution to an unbalanced game state isn't to just delete all the options except the absolute most efficient ones, it's to address the imbalance so all the options are worth considering

Well... I'm generally not fond of removing or consolidating options. But that said, 40k does sometimes have an issue where options that made sense at one point in time stop being supported by the core rules and thus it becomes harder to find a niche for them.

Like, look at how grav weapons went from being this quirky option that interacted with the vehicle damage chart to being a generic gun-with-ap that sort of nudges up against other weapons roles.

That's not to say that I'm advocating for dropping grenade launchers or grav guns, but:
A. Ideally, each weapon would have a niche.
B. Finding that niche can become more difficult as editions change.
C. I think 40k does have a habit of sometimes making more bespoke weapons or units than are really needed, and sometimes it's okay to consolidate a few of those where you can.

Like, I want wych weapons to be a thing again, but I'd also be okay with them all getting rolled into a single "wych weapon" statline instead of making gauntlets, impalers, and razorflails into their own almost-identical variations of each other. If GW wanted to take the time to find a real niche for each of those weapons and give them flavorful, distinctive rules, that's great too, but failing that, I think I might prefer they all be lumped together as "wych weapons" rather than having hydra gauntlets be stuck as worse razorflails or whatever.

I'm fine with SOME consolidation.
Power Weapons don't really need to be split into Axe, Sword, Maul... They're all one-handed, moderate-size melee weapons with a powerfield.

But Plasma, Melta, Grenade Launchers... They should be distinct.
Even if the niche held by Launchers is just "Cheap but reasonably effective special weapon" and all the others are better, but more expensive.

See, I go the other way, I say make melee more distinct, and shooty bits more homogenized. This is an AT gun, it hits Tanks Good. This is a Person blaster, it'll take care of many small light targets. This is an inbetween gun, for medium targets like Orks.

But I do think a Power Fist, and a Thunder Hammer should have different profiles. I don't think a Power Sword should be the same damage but one less attack as a chain sword, (previous versions here). If I stab you with a Lightning sword, it should hurt more than hitting you with a stupid piece of rebarr with concrete on it (GSC). I know Melee was more designed around who was wielding it. And Ranged Shooting was supposed to be equal. But now we have "special ranged" rules for special factions, and suddenly everything is wonky.

I still say go back to Small Arms Ranged weapon or AT Ranged Weapon, full stop, and then make melee unique and distinct.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I'm fine with SOME consolidation.
Power Weapons don't really need to be split into Axe, Sword, Maul... They're all one-handed, moderate-size melee weapons with a powerfield.

But Plasma, Melta, Grenade Launchers... They should be distinct.
Even if the niche held by Launchers is just "Cheap but reasonably effective special weapon" and all the others are better, but more expensive.

Fair. Agreed. Gosh making wargear "free" was an awkward choice.

Only because they half assed it, if they'd tried to make the weapons have parity of use/power then no issues, but when you have one that's only redeeming trait is that it's gak and cheap, you can't then make them all the same price.

Dudeface wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I'm fine with SOME consolidation.
Power Weapons don't really need to be split into Axe, Sword, Maul... They're all one-handed, moderate-size melee weapons with a powerfield.

But Plasma, Melta, Grenade Launchers... They should be distinct.
Even if the niche held by Launchers is just "Cheap but reasonably effective special weapon" and all the others are better, but more expensive.

Fair. Agreed. Gosh making wargear "free" was an awkward choice.

Only because they half assed it, if they'd tried to make the weapons have parity of use/power then no issues, but when you have one that's only redeeming trait is that it's gak and cheap, you can't then make them all the same price.

Right, that's what I'm saying. By removing points for wargear, they basically removed the option of having some weapons be less powerful than others but also cheaper to compensate. I'm fine with grenade launchers being less powerful than plasma and melta provided they're also a smaller investment. Or to use an even clearer example, I'm fine with sergeant laspistols being weaker than plasma pistols. In fact, it would feel weird if the plasma pistol wasn't a notable upgrade from the laspistol. But right now, there's no reason to ever take the laspistol instead.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I'm fine with SOME consolidation.
Power Weapons don't really need to be split into Axe, Sword, Maul... They're all one-handed, moderate-size melee weapons with a powerfield.

But Plasma, Melta, Grenade Launchers... They should be distinct.
Even if the niche held by Launchers is just "Cheap but reasonably effective special weapon" and all the others are better, but more expensive.

Fair. Agreed. Gosh making wargear "free" was an awkward choice.

Only because they half assed it, if they'd tried to make the weapons have parity of use/power then no issues, but when you have one that's only redeeming trait is that it's gak and cheap, you can't then make them all the same price.

Right, that's what I'm saying. By removing points for wargear, they basically removed the option of having some weapons be less powerful than others but also cheaper to compensate. I'm fine with grenade launchers being less powerful than plasma and melta provided they're also a smaller investment. Or to use an even clearer example, I'm fine with sergeant laspistols being weaker than plasma pistols. In fact, it would feel weird if the plasma pistol wasn't a notable upgrade from the laspistol. But right now, there's no reason to ever take the laspistol instead.

Yeah I was firmly in camp "see it through" and wanted them to complete the consolidation/parity pass, but I think that ship sailed now and points are required in the places they clearly ran out of time for.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

ccs wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Ok, for all the people who think my comment rediculous, please provide evidence of the times you've used and mained the Grenade Launcher in squads in the last 3 editions. Or the Flamer. Or the Missile launcher. You Can't. Because you haven't. No one has. No one ever has outside of thematic plot games.

Nope. The real reason I can't is because I've just never thought to document it. (RIGHT. And the reason I can't introduce you to my girlfriend is because she's busy this weekend modeling in Milan)

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
The grenade launcher has been worthless since 8th, likely before it. Everything has been worthless in comparrison to the almighty plasma rifle. There is no argument, and there never has been. As far as launchers, I suppose we'll all just pretend that Mortar spam hasn't been the Guard defacto

1st, what's mortar spam have to do with anything? You can spam mortars & still have plenty of room in a force for other heavy weapons. And you should - because mortars don't really cut it as AT weapons.
2nd, have you actually looked at the stats for a GL firing Krak? Because the mantra of the Guard for the past several editions has been DAKKA DAKKA DAKKA. Who cares if it's not S8 AP4, if you hit the tank with 36 buckets of dice, it'll do more damage in the long run anyway, and it's better at clearing the infantry off objectives. The biggest red herring of Guard has always been going for AT weapons, when they have FRFSRF. The big scary LC or AC have always been worthless compared to the HB or Mortar. Because more shots always means more damage for the long run with guard. Point in case: The Executioner LRBT. Worthless compared to the Punisher.

Would you like to know why the grenade launcher & melta feature prominently in my Valhallan force though?
Because waaay back in 2e (& into 3e) when I was building my metal Guard regiments, each regiment only included sculpts for 3/4 special weapons. The Vallhallens? Guess what? They lacked the plasma gun. Sure, I could (and did) convert a few plasma gunners. But the GLs & meltas are still the most common special weapons in my Vallhallen case.

Flamers? Yes, my Valhallens use those as well. I typically form them into vet/command squads with multiples when the editions allow, though there's a few in actual infantry squads.

And the sniper rifle? wasn't even an option back then. and I've never gotten around to converting any for the Valhallens. Though I might here in 10e. (So your argument against my statement that they haven't been used in the last 3 editions, is: WELL THEY WERE USED in 3rd EDITION in the 80s!)? Really?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Scion Command squads are better with Sniper rifles than Plasma Rifles.

And how many sniper rifles can a Scions command squad take?

Who cares? Point was, you can air drop your 4 man murder squads within RF range of Plasma on turn 1, but not Melta rule range, and outside Flamer Range. Yes, they COULD take sniper Rifles in 8th. But no one ever did, because Plasma was better in ever aspect.

Are you still talking about the past concerning your deep striking plasma team? Because if not you're in for a rude surprise when you read the current rules for the squad.....

Anyways, congrats upon finding a niche that worked well for your scion plasma guns (I've been doing the same with SM + melta/MM + drop pods for decades). But just because you did, that doesn't render everyone else use of other weapons fictitious. Or those weapons pointless.

I'm glad some of the community is starting to come around on the idea that charging points for many of these options was pointless (pun intended), or at least not strictly required given that GW found a way to achieve parity or equivalent value between choices (which they didn't, but thats GWs fault more than a demonstration of an intrinsic requirement for there to be points).

a_typical_hero wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Exactly. For Necromunda the question of whether Sven has a laspistol, autopistol, stubpistol or bolt pistol is Very Important.

When there's 200 guys on the table, no one cares.

I have to disagree. While I want to see weapon consolidation in some parts (a power sword should work like a power sword regardless of the user and not be a "Vigil weapon" here and a "Cursed weapon" there), a big part of the appeal of 40k as a game has always been the option to customise your models to a maybe silly degree.

There are games like Epic (or Legion Imperialis now) that are more strategy focused and have less RPG in them, but I want my 40k to keep this kink.

And you can customize your guys to a silly degree with the current system. Everything has options, a bolt pistol or a laspistol are still choices you can make... its just that as they are currently designed, theres a clear best choice and a clear worst choice to take which makes the customization a problem.

Heres a counterpoint though - when they cost points, there was a lot of feelsbad that originated because of changes in points values for these options from edition to edition resulted in the meta shifting and your builds no longer being valid or no longer being best choice. IN THEORY, moving to a pointless system where everything has roughly approximate equivalent value gets rid of that feelsbad. If you build your squads with a flamer because you really like flamers, its a valid choice every edition going forward (so long as GW doesn't bring points back - big if) and you never have to feel bad about it, so long as the flamer is of equal value to a the meltagun, plasmagun, sniper rifle, and other choices and there is not a clear favorite or best among them (another big if, its hard to get that balance right even if you put a lot of effort into it, though it is possible - but GW didn't bother putting any effort into it at all...).

One thing I've said on multiple occasions though, evaluating value only based on weapon profiles and/or lethality is a failure of imagination (on the design studios part). I don't expect them to find a way to make a las-pistol as equally lethal as a bolt pistol or a plasma pistol... frankly its not really possible unless you give them a lot of shots to compensate for their weakness. But, there are other things that can be done to give value to different choices beyond just their use as weapons that might give them niche application or make them more worthwhile choices.

Taking the laspistol could be tied to a rule that provides the unit re-roll of 1s to hit when using FRFSRF, with a bit of fluff about how officers or sergeants who use laspistols often drill closely with their units riflemen and prioritize the standardization of equipment to ease the logistical burden by carrying common ammunition, this means that units lead by such officers often are slightly better shots than their compratriots as well as being less conservative with their firepower, as replacement packs are more readily available to them than in units that have to carry spare bolter ammuition or plasma cells.

Bolt pistols can give a small bonus to leadership or battleshock tests or something, with a fluff blurb about how bolt pistols are closely associated with Astartes and those who wield them are inspiring to those they serve with given the immense strength required to handle the recoil of the weapon or something.

Plasma pistols are plasma pistols - they're straight killy, they don't need anything else.

Likewise, grenade launchers - I think they've had a nice little glow-up - they provide some of the anti-infantry of flamers and some of the anti-heavy-infantry/light-vehicle of meltaguns. If you're taking a missile launcher they seem to be a pretty good complement to go alongside it in terms of having the same versatility and general capability, but lets say that the state of the meta is such that that versatility is meaningless and plasma guns or meltaguns are still the clear favorite. Well, you can buff the grenade launcher simply by giving it a special ability - a model equipped with a grenade launcher can forgo firing it to give the unit -1 to hit until their next turn, representing them using smoke grenades to conceal themselves. Suddenly, that grenade launcher has a bit more niche application and utility that gives them some more purpose. They no longer need to compete with the killiness of the other weapons directly, they derive additional value from simply being able to help make the squad equipped with one more resilient.

Sniper not cutting it? Maybe they automatically trigger battleshock on the target unit if they successfully hit to represent the unit going to ground and taking cover, etc.

Flamers not up to snuff? How about units declaring a charge against a unit equipped with a flamer suffer a -3" penalty to their charge range, to represent the fact that the gouts of flame cause them to slow down and try to shield themselves as they advance.

etc. etc.

Weapons can still have varying degrees of "powerful" while all being equally free, as long as some of that power gap is compensated for through other forms of utility.

chaos0xomega wrote:
I'm glad some of the community is starting to come around on the idea that charging points for many of these options was pointless (pun intended), or at least not strictly required given that GW found a way to achieve parity or equivalent value between choices (which they didn't, but thats GWs fault more than a demonstration of an intrinsic requirement for there to be points).

a_typical_hero wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Exactly. For Necromunda the question of whether Sven has a laspistol, autopistol, stubpistol or bolt pistol is Very Important.

When there's 200 guys on the table, no one cares.

I have to disagree. While I want to see weapon consolidation in some parts (a power sword should work like a power sword regardless of the user and not be a "Vigil weapon" here and a "Cursed weapon" there), a big part of the appeal of 40k as a game has always been the option to customise your models to a maybe silly degree.

There are games like Epic (or Legion Imperialis now) that are more strategy focused and have less RPG in them, but I want my 40k to keep this kink.

And you can customize your guys to a silly degree with the current system. Everything has options, a bolt pistol or a laspistol are still choices you can make... its just that as they are currently designed, theres a clear best choice and a clear worst choice to take which makes the customization a problem.

Heres a counterpoint though - when they cost points, there was a lot of feelsbad that originated because of changes in points values for these options from edition to edition resulted in the meta shifting and your builds no longer being valid or no longer being best choice. IN THEORY, moving to a pointless system where everything has roughly approximate equivalent value gets rid of that feelsbad. If you build your squads with a flamer because you really like flamers, its a valid choice every edition going forward (so long as GW doesn't bring points back - big if) and you never have to feel bad about it, so long as the flamer is of equal value to a the meltagun, plasmagun, sniper rifle, and other choices and there is not a clear favorite or best among them (another big if, its hard to get that balance right even if you put a lot of effort into it, though it is possible - but GW didn't bother putting any effort into it at all...).

One thing I've said on multiple occasions though, evaluating value only based on weapon profiles and/or lethality is a failure of imagination (on the design studios part). I don't expect them to find a way to make a las-pistol as equally lethal as a bolt pistol or a plasma pistol... frankly its not really possible unless you give them a lot of shots to compensate for their weakness. But, there are other things that can be done to give value to different choices beyond just their use as weapons that might give them niche application or make them more worthwhile choices.

Taking the laspistol could be tied to a rule that provides the unit re-roll of 1s to hit when using FRFSRF, with a bit of fluff about how officers or sergeants who use laspistols often drill closely with their units riflemen and prioritize the standardization of equipment to ease the logistical burden by carrying common ammunition, this means that units lead by such officers often are slightly better shots than their compratriots as well as being less conservative with their firepower, as replacement packs are more readily available to them than in units that have to carry spare bolter ammuition or plasma cells.

Bolt pistols can give a small bonus to leadership or battleshock tests or something, with a fluff blurb about how bolt pistols are closely associated with Astartes and those who wield them are inspiring to those they serve with given the immense strength required to handle the recoil of the weapon or something.

Plasma pistols are plasma pistols - they're straight killy, they don't need anything else.

Likewise, grenade launchers - I think they've had a nice little glow-up - they provide some of the anti-infantry of flamers and some of the anti-heavy-infantry/light-vehicle of meltaguns. If you're taking a missile launcher they seem to be a pretty good complement to go alongside it in terms of having the same versatility and general capability, but lets say that the state of the meta is such that that versatility is meaningless and plasma guns or meltaguns are still the clear favorite. Well, you can buff the grenade launcher simply by giving it a special ability - a model equipped with a grenade launcher can forgo firing it to give the unit -1 to hit until their next turn, representing them using smoke grenades to conceal themselves. Suddenly, that grenade launcher has a bit more niche application and utility that gives them some more purpose. They no longer need to compete with the killiness of the other weapons directly, they derive additional value from simply being able to help make the squad equipped with one more resilient.

Sniper not cutting it? Maybe they automatically trigger battleshock on the target unit if they successfully hit to represent the unit going to ground and taking cover, etc.

Flamers not up to snuff? How about units declaring a charge against a unit equipped with a flamer suffer a -3" penalty to their charge range, to represent the fact that the gouts of flame cause them to slow down and try to shield themselves as they advance.

etc. etc.

Weapons can still have varying degrees of "powerful" while all being equally free, as long as some of that power gap is compensated for through other forms of utility.

This is the best argument for free wargear I've yet to hear. I'm very impressed, and you managed to make me change my mind about it being terrible as a concept.

But it's still all based in "what-ifs" of future rules and balance that may never happen, and the issues of free wargear is compounded by stricter headcounts on squads, meaning it would still be impossible to make minor point adjustments to your lists.

Now if you are even just 5 points above or below your battle size, you need to change out multiple units on your list instead of simply adding or subtracting a cheap model, or downgrading or upgrading a weapon.

chaos0xomega wrote:
I'm glad some of the community is starting to come around on the idea that charging points for many of these options was pointless (pun intended), or at least not strictly required given that GW found a way to achieve parity or equivalent value between choices (which they didn't, but thats GWs fault more than a demonstration of an intrinsic requirement for there to be points).

Taking the laspistol could be tied to a rule that provides the unit re-roll of 1s to hit...

Bolt pistols can give a small bonus to leadership or battleshock tests...

Plasma pistols are plasma pistols - they're straight killy, they don't need anything else.

Weapons can still have varying degrees of "powerful" while all being equally free, as long as some of that power gap is compensated for through other forms of utility.

While making all weapons equally valuable by slapping on extra rules could theoretically work, and while those are some neat ideas you have there... I think you're talking about a very complicated solution to a relatively simple problem. Trying to figure out how to make multiple special rules for competing weapon slots "balanced" (read: similarly desirable enough that all see play) is throwing a lot of moving parts into the mix. Plus adding special rules when one of 10th's frequent complaints is the number of bespoke rules floating around. Plus, do you have to come up with variations on those special rules when you're talking about units with the "same" weapons but different competing options?

Compare all that to just... letting some weapons be a smaller investment with a smaller payoff.

You're right that it was annoying when point changes caused the meta to shift and your previous choices to become suboptimal, but the current point system doesn't really avoid that. GW could announce a change tomorrow that makes missile launchers better than lascannons, and I'd be frustrated about all those models I built with lascannons instead of launchers the same way I would be if they'd cranked the points of lascannons up. So going to the trouble of writing the perfect special rules for all competing weapons still wouldn't save us from the issue you identified earlier. On the other hand, bringing back points gives you a relatively easy way to reflect the increased/decreased value of weapons when the meta inevitably shifts in the future anyway.

Also, FWIW here's a thread I just started largely inspired by this conversation: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/812887.page

I thought the goal was to reduce bloat, now we're saying, keep the bloat, and add MORE special rules? Because now I hear the Sisters players demanding special flamer rules, Special Melta Rules, oh, and here come the Tau as well. Off in the distance, I can see the orks demanding special smoke flamer rules. By golly what have we done?

Reduce what bloat? GW doesn't reduce. At best they remove stuff, they no longer want to produce.
Once there was one entry for a cpt/chaptermaster. He could get a bike, pack, termintor armour or be in power armour. Could have different weapons. One entry in the codex. Now each different arment is a separate data slate. There is 1 phobos cpt, 3 phobos Lt. One Land Speeder turned in to 3 Primaris Landspeeders. One predator turned in to 3 Primaris Predators. Marines had tacticals as troops, with some armies getting something extra. Now there are 2 types of phobos, 3 types of intercessors. etc

For marines there is a lot to replace, so it shows the most. But did we really need X separate types of ork buggies, instead of one buggy having X number of load outs?

Karol wrote:
Reduce what bloat? GW doesn't reduce. At best they remove stuff, they no longer want to produce.

Tbf, that's not entirely true. 10th saw a major cut back in the number of stratagems in play at a time, the number of detachment rules you had to remember, reduced warlord traits and relics down to enhancements, consolidated intercessor guns into a single profile...

While there's a lot of stuff that got removed in 10th that I wish had stayed around, they *did* streamline things somewhat. For the worse in the case of unit customization, but let's be cranky for the right reasons.

But did we really need X separate types of ork buggies, instead of one buggy having X number of load outs?

I feel like buggies are a little more justified than a lot of other units. Haven't they each had their own pretty dramatically different special rule since they were first introduced? Maybe I'm just thinking of the Shock Jump Dragsta with its big red button. Without really knowing orks very well, I at least had the impression that buggies were quite a bit more distinctive from each other than, say, leman russ variants are from each other.

Karol wrote:
But did we really need X separate types of ork buggies, instead of one buggy having X number of load outs?

Yes.
Because on GWs end the goal is to sell you as many buggies as possible. And 4 seperate data sheets/kits that an ork player can field 1-3 each is > than 1 sheet/kit that the player only needs 3 of.

ccs wrote:

Karol wrote:
But did we really need X separate types of ork buggies, instead of one buggy having X number of load outs?

Yes.
Because on GWs end the goal is to sell you as many buggies as possible. And 4 seperate data sheets/kits that an ork player can field 1-3 each is > than 1 sheet/kit that the player only needs 3 of.

Meaning the real answer is No, because the Rule of Three is really dumb.

 Insectum7 wrote:

ccs wrote:

Karol wrote:
But did we really need X separate types of ork buggies, instead of one buggy having X number of load outs?

Yes.
Because on GWs end the goal is to sell you as many buggies as possible. And 4 seperate data sheets/kits that an ork player can field 1-3 each is > than 1 sheet/kit that the player only needs 3 of.

Meaning the real answer is No, because the Rule of Three is really dumb.

In a world with no FoC, strong disagree.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
While making all weapons equally valuable by slapping on extra rules could theoretically work, and while those are some neat ideas you have there... I think you're talking about a very complicated solution to a relatively simple problem. Trying to figure out how to make multiple special rules for competing weapon slots "balanced" (read: similarly desirable enough that all see play) is throwing a lot of moving parts into the mix. Plus adding special rules when one of 10th's frequent complaints is the number of bespoke rules floating around. Plus, do you have to come up with variations on those special rules when you're talking about units with the "same" weapons but different competing options?

Compare all that to just... letting some weapons be a smaller investment with a smaller payoff.

Yeah, the argument that balancing by weapon stats will lead to less feels-bad moments doesn't make any sense. 'GW nerfed missile launchers and now all my units suck' is exactly the same as 'GW increased the cost of missile launchers and now all my units suck'. 'Plasma guns are too good, they're the only real option' is exactly the same as 'plasma guns are too cheap, they're the only real option'. Expecting that GW will be better at making all weapons equally viable and attractive by removing a balancing lever sounds like special pleading to me.

There's also the aspect that using bespoke special rules for units to make some of the options more enticing is adding more bespoke special rules to an edition already jammed full of special rules, while having the stats on a given weapon vary by unit detracts from learnability and consistency. The only remaining option is to modify statlines universally, and try to establish weapon option parity across an entire faction, which is clearly not easy either.

This is in large part a problem of GW's own making, ever since they decided to stop making points costs contextual to the units taking the options. The utility of a weapon option between BS4+ footslogging Guardsmen and BS3+ deep-striking Scions is just not the same, nor is the utility of a power sword on a random sergeant versus a melee-focused character.

I'm not opposed to the idea of establishing sidegrades rather than nitpicky cost differences on the face of it, but if you're willing to throw special rules onto units or modify weapon statlines for specific units to try to balance out their options, you might as well simply set individual points costs on those options. It's just as much bespoke balance work, but at least all that minutiae is resolved pre-game, and then once you start playing a flamer is a flamer no matter who's carrying it.

Agree with Catbarf.

Dudeface wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

ccs wrote:

Karol wrote:
But did we really need X separate types of ork buggies, instead of one buggy having X number of load outs?

Yes.
Because on GWs end the goal is to sell you as many buggies as possible. And 4 seperate data sheets/kits that an ork player can field 1-3 each is > than 1 sheet/kit that the player only needs 3 of.

Meaning the real answer is No, because the Rule of Three is really dumb.

In a world with no FoC, strong disagree.

Well, I personally think removing FoC is also a bad idea.

 catbarf wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
While making all weapons equally valuable by slapping on extra rules could theoretically work, and while those are some neat ideas you have there... I think you're talking about a very complicated solution to a relatively simple problem. Trying to figure out how to make multiple special rules for competing weapon slots "balanced" (read: similarly desirable enough that all see play) is throwing a lot of moving parts into the mix. Plus adding special rules when one of 10th's frequent complaints is the number of bespoke rules floating around. Plus, do you have to come up with variations on those special rules when you're talking about units with the "same" weapons but different competing options?

Compare all that to just... letting some weapons be a smaller investment with a smaller payoff.

Yeah, the argument that balancing by weapon stats will lead to less feels-bad moments doesn't make any sense. 'GW nerfed missile launchers and now all my units suck' is exactly the same as 'GW increased the cost of missile launchers and now all my units suck'. 'Plasma guns are too good, they're the only real option' is exactly the same as 'plasma guns are too cheap, they're the only real option'. Expecting that GW will be better at making all weapons equally viable and attractive by removing a balancing lever sounds like special pleading to me.

There's also the aspect that using bespoke special rules for units to make some of the options more enticing is adding more bespoke special rules to an edition already jammed full of special rules, while having the stats on a given weapon vary by unit detracts from learnability and consistency. The only remaining option is to modify statlines universally, and try to establish weapon option parity across an entire faction, which is clearly not easy either.



This is in large part a problem of GW's own making, ever since they decided to stop making points costs contextual to the units taking the options. The utility of a weapon option between BS4+ footslogging Guardsmen and BS3+ deep-striking Scions is just not the same, nor is the utility of a power sword on a random sergeant versus a melee-focused character.

I'm not opposed to the idea of establishing sidegrades rather than nitpicky cost differences on the face of it, but if you're willing to throw special rules onto units or modify weapon statlines for specific units to try to balance out their options, you might as well simply set individual points costs on those options. It's just as much bespoke balance work, but at least all that minutiae is resolved pre-game, and then once you start playing a flamer is a flamer no matter who's carrying it.

I think you are right on the whole, but I think where a lot of the butt hurt comes from is finding out all your time and effort is a complete waste and you can't play with "your dudes" now, because they are holding GLs, and not Meltas, etc. People tend to take that all kinds of hard when the FLGS Chief nerd says the Blue Space Troopers aren't Blood Angels, They're Ultra Marines. And those aren't Power Fists, they're chain Swords. If new hobbyists could hot swap parts and we all played with Mr Potato heads, this wouldn't be an issue. But instead, the time, effort, and money involved, tends to really cause upset confusion when you can't play, or worse, have a good time, because you glued the wrong bit of plastic on.


Edit:

So yeah, it's better for the hobby if we don't have 5-10 options PER model.

 catbarf wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
While making all weapons equally valuable by slapping on extra rules could theoretically work, and while those are some neat ideas you have there... I think you're talking about a very complicated solution to a relatively simple problem. Trying to figure out how to make multiple special rules for competing weapon slots "balanced" (read: similarly desirable enough that all see play) is throwing a lot of moving parts into the mix. Plus adding special rules when one of 10th's frequent complaints is the number of bespoke rules floating around. Plus, do you have to come up with variations on those special rules when you're talking about units with the "same" weapons but different competing options?

Compare all that to just... letting some weapons be a smaller investment with a smaller payoff.

Yeah, the argument that balancing by weapon stats will lead to less feels-bad moments doesn't make any sense. 'GW nerfed missile launchers and now all my units suck' is exactly the same as 'GW increased the cost of missile launchers and now all my units suck'. 'Plasma guns are too good, they're the only real option' is exactly the same as 'plasma guns are too cheap, they're the only real option'. Expecting that GW will be better at making all weapons equally viable and attractive by removing a balancing lever sounds like special pleading to me.

There's also the aspect that using bespoke special rules for units to make some of the options more enticing is adding more bespoke special rules to an edition already jammed full of special rules, while having the stats on a given weapon vary by unit detracts from learnability and consistency. The only remaining option is to modify statlines universally, and try to establish weapon option parity across an entire faction, which is clearly not easy either.

This is in large part a problem of GW's own making, ever since they decided to stop making points costs contextual to the units taking the options. The utility of a weapon option between BS4+ footslogging Guardsmen and BS3+ deep-striking Scions is just not the same, nor is the utility of a power sword on a random sergeant versus a melee-focused character.

I'm not opposed to the idea of establishing sidegrades rather than nitpicky cost differences on the face of it, but if you're willing to throw special rules onto units or modify weapon statlines for specific units to try to balance out their options, you might as well simply set individual points costs on those options. It's just as much bespoke balance work, but at least all that minutiae is resolved pre-game, and then once you start playing a flamer is a flamer no matter who's carrying it.

Agreed on all points! Abandoning individualized points costs for wargear seemed like a weird choice at the time, and it only seems weirder now that we've resorted to individualized weapon profiles. Extra weirdness when you consider that Avenger Shuriken Catapults and regular guardian Shuriken Catapults are still named differently even though they're the ideal example of where individualized weapon profiles would actually kind of make sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

So yeah, it's better for the hobby if we don't have 5-10 options PER model.

Slightly hyperbolic response to make a point: you could change all datasheets so that every unit in the game has at most only 2 options to choose from, and you'd *still* end up with the same problem. You can choose between machineguns and shotguns. Machineguns were better when you built your squad, so you gave them all machineguns. Then GW released an update that makes shotguns better. Now you're sad that you built machinegunners instead of shotgunners.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
While making all weapons equally valuable by slapping on extra rules could theoretically work, and while those are some neat ideas you have there... I think you're talking about a very complicated solution to a relatively simple problem. Trying to figure out how to make multiple special rules for competing weapon slots "balanced" (read: similarly desirable enough that all see play) is throwing a lot of moving parts into the mix. Plus adding special rules when one of 10th's frequent complaints is the number of bespoke rules floating around. Plus, do you have to come up with variations on those special rules when you're talking about units with the "same" weapons but different competing options?

Compare all that to just... letting some weapons be a smaller investment with a smaller payoff.

Yeah, the argument that balancing by weapon stats will lead to less feels-bad moments doesn't make any sense. 'GW nerfed missile launchers and now all my units suck' is exactly the same as 'GW increased the cost of missile launchers and now all my units suck'. 'Plasma guns are too good, they're the only real option' is exactly the same as 'plasma guns are too cheap, they're the only real option'. Expecting that GW will be better at making all weapons equally viable and attractive by removing a balancing lever sounds like special pleading to me.

There's also the aspect that using bespoke special rules for units to make some of the options more enticing is adding more bespoke special rules to an edition already jammed full of special rules, while having the stats on a given weapon vary by unit detracts from learnability and consistency. The only remaining option is to modify statlines universally, and try to establish weapon option parity across an entire faction, which is clearly not easy either.

This is in large part a problem of GW's own making, ever since they decided to stop making points costs contextual to the units taking the options. The utility of a weapon option between BS4+ footslogging Guardsmen and BS3+ deep-striking Scions is just not the same, nor is the utility of a power sword on a random sergeant versus a melee-focused character.

I'm not opposed to the idea of establishing sidegrades rather than nitpicky cost differences on the face of it, but if you're willing to throw special rules onto units or modify weapon statlines for specific units to try to balance out their options, you might as well simply set individual points costs on those options. It's just as much bespoke balance work, but at least all that minutiae is resolved pre-game, and then once you start playing a flamer is a flamer no matter who's carrying it.

Agreed on all points! Abandoning individualized points costs for wargear seemed like a weird choice at the time, and it only seems weirder now that we've resorted to individualized weapon profiles. Extra weirdness when you consider that Avenger Shuriken Catapults and regular guardian Shuriken Catapults are still named differently even though they're the ideal example of where individualized weapon profiles would actually kind of make sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

So yeah, it's better for the hobby if we don't have 5-10 options PER model.

Slightly hyperbolic response to make a point: you could change all datasheets so that every unit in the game has at most only 2 options to choose from, and you'd *still* end up with the same problem. You can choose between machineguns and shotguns. Machineguns were better when you built your squad, so you gave them all machineguns. Then GW released an update that makes shotguns better. Now you're sad that you built machinegunners instead of shotgunners.

Not Hyperbolic in the least. Currently the standard guard squad has as an option: 5 Special Weapons: Melta, Plasma, Sniper, Flamer, and Grenade Launcher. Then they get a stock Lasgun if they take none of those. Depending on the type of Infantry Squad (Including various non cadian stock regiments here) so that's 6 options. Then you have 3 different options for Heavy Weapons Team. Then you have SGT Options. He gets 3 ranged options, and 2 melee options. So thats 14 different options, and that's a single squad. Now magnify that out to a max strength squad, and it gets even dumber. Other Regiments get even different options. Not hyperbole to say that one of the simplest squads in the entire game is the most frustration to properly assemble, then get smacked with a rules shift that makes it non-viable.

Not Hyperbolic in the least. Currently the standard guard squad has as an option: 5 Special Weapons: Melta, Plasma, Sniper, Flamer, and Grenade Launcher. Then they get a stock Lasgun if they take none of those. Depending on the type of Infantry Squad (Including various non cadian stock regiments here) so that's 6 options. Then you have 3 different options for Heavy Weapons Team. Then you have SGT Options. He gets 3 ranged options, and 2 melee options. So thats 14 different options, and that's a single squad. Now magnify that out to a max strength squad, and it gets even dumber. Other Regiments get even different options. Not hyperbole to say that one of the simplest squads in the entire game is the most frustration to properly assemble, then get smacked with a rules shift that makes it non-viable.

I feel like "non-viable" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. Broadly, I consider options to be "well-balanced" if all of those options are "good enough" to see play without being a severe handicap for the player. Or put another way, options don't need to be 100% perfectly equivalent; just close enough that I can see myself using each option without feeling bad about it.

Generally, weapon options within a given squad don't tend to become completely worthless when a different weapon steps into the spotlight; they just become less good in comparison to other options. So in 10th, an aeldari missile launcher is less good at anti-tank than a bright lance, but it's not like they're unplayable. The two options are "close enough" for me to feel okay about using either of them.

Now, if you only engage with 40k through a hardcore competitive lens, your definition of "close enough" might be more strict/limited. But it's worth acknowledging that that's a very specific contex in which to discuss things.

(Also, I usually use sticky tack or magnets on the weapons that I expect to swap out at some point. It's hard to be upset about my weapon choices when it takes all of 5 seconds to swap them out.)

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Not Hyperbolic in the least. Currently the standard guard squad has as an option: 5 Special Weapons: Melta, Plasma, Sniper, Flamer, and Grenade Launcher. Then they get a stock Lasgun if they take none of those. Depending on the type of Infantry Squad (Including various non cadian stock regiments here) so that's 6 options. Then you have 3 different options for Heavy Weapons Team. Then you have SGT Options. He gets 3 ranged options, and 2 melee options. So thats 14 different options, and that's a single squad. Now magnify that out to a max strength squad, and it gets even dumber. Other Regiments get even different options. Not hyperbole to say that one of the simplest squads in the entire game is the most frustration to properly assemble, then get smacked with a rules shift that makes it non-viable.

And don't forget - one squad is a tiny % of your army. Having multiple options for a relatively inconsequential unit, and having some of those options being genuinely good does very weird things to balance and army list building. As someone else in the thread pointed out few wargames do this (but he likes it). I think it was always part of the GW design set up - the whole pouring over books online in your tweens is something that many like. We are all normally older gamers and at that point our views tend to shift about how much we want to care about 0.05% of our army (or 0.25% if everything is in 5 point increments).

I would love to see meaningful choice between options, but as many have concluded their kinda isn't. With the current set up though I would expect the only way to do it would be to have different categories of squads, with each squad having a more limited weapon choice.

But then you have the thing I absolutely hate the most in GW games currently - what is in the box. Not what is in the range. What is in the box. And then failing to package sprues in a way that gives you decent options in that box. It wouldn't have killed GW's bottom line for example to have had in the catachan box a sprue of the squad infantry, a heavy weapon team and the command sprue. Make 10 guys from that. Stacks of options, poses, weapons etc. And for retail only 1 SKU.

Ok guys, I think we're shifting the goal posts here. First it was the GUARD is super bloated. Now I provided an example, that magnified, proves that assertion. Now the argument has morphed into "Well, Aldari MLs used to be though worthless, and are still viable", or "One squad is a tiny percentage of your overall army".

No, I'm sorry, both are bad faith arguments. The Infantry squad is the back bone of the guard lists, they hold the objectives while the big guns do heavy lifting. Also, most of the rules focus on Guard is around the Infantry squad. or Supplimenting it. Furthermore, who gives a spit in the wind about another faction's effectiveness? It's not the point here.

I don’t think “Pick up to one special weapon, pick up to one heavy weapon, Sergeant can take up to one pistol and up to one melee weapon,” is the bloat you think it is.