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.

Seems to be an odd set up where a community house rules that you can’t use certain models that are perfectly legal then complains that those models can’t be used. Maybe it’s different groups of people complaining but all blending into one internet soup. Seems daft when the rules are clear and like gibblets says, they are all pretty “meh” rules wise, not over powered at all.

 Gibblets wrote:

CorwinB wrote:
Isn't part of the problem here with Legends units that there are a lot of people in clubs/FLGS that consider casual games as tournament practice, and only want to apply competitive list building and rules (terrain...) ?

That's my problem. I was recently motivated into trying again and yep all 12 people were not interested in anything other than tourney practice games because of the perpetual league running. Maybe in another 4 months Ill try again; I do miss having a hobby.

I always find this kind of funny because, having lived this world, very few games in these groups are actually valid tourny practice. Practically speaking there's little difference between playing against a Legends unit and someone with a Terminator unit or like GSC or something that's been recently nerfed. Not to have a massive chip on my shoulder, but most of the time there's only a couple players in these groups that provide a serious challenge, no matter how serious everyone takes things.

I learned a long time ago that I can hold myself to a tournament standard without needing my opponent to do the same. It's still practice with my list, getting familiar with combos and rules. It's good to play the same scenarios, but those have gotten pretty good for casual play anyway. There's times where its a good idea to grind into a specific meta list, but you have to set that up and play with different parameters anyway (rewind game states, take multiple first turns, etc).

The idea that if we all act like every game is a tourney and every game is serious business is generally more stifling than beneficial. Being practiced with your options and adaptive to your opponents' is often what makes for truly great players.

I agree. These are the people who don't know the special rules for some of their units or how to score when they're playing. Yet they expect tournament missions and cant be held to that level of base line competence. They'd be better served by capture the relic or line breaker missions that allow them to be the casuals they are. Instead of pushing beyond what their free time allows them to learn. Sad days for those who view the table top as a place to test your ability to adapt to unique real world like scenarios.

That’s actually fairly normal, a lot of players are just wanting what is a standard game of 40K. Even tournaments see lots of players who just want to have fun, play a few games and no worry about the ranks.

Competition forums, reddit and discord has lots and lots of players there just for info on rules, and how to play what they like.

This is probably why it’s part of setting the standard for a lot of players, for other play styles there isn’t a network of support or information.

 Tawnis wrote:
That seems to be the current way people expect things. It's just at odds with how Legends are presented. The way GW talks about them, the assumption SHOULD be that they are always allowed unless stated otherwise.

If GW wanted them to be always allowed, they'd put them in the respective codices.

The entire point of Legends is to de facto remove units from the game.

They might technically still have rules, but the obvious intent is for them to slowly die of neglect.

Ah yes, blameing the customer for the subpart job of the company.

 vipoid wrote:

 Tawnis wrote:
That seems to be the current way people expect things. It's just at odds with how Legends are presented. The way GW talks about them, the assumption SHOULD be that they are always allowed unless stated otherwise.

If GW wanted them to be always allowed, they'd put them in the respective codices.

The entire point of Legends is to de facto remove units from the game.

They might technically still have rules, but the obvious intent is for them to slowly die of neglect.

GW have said they are always allowed except in tournament’s. It’s pretty clear what they want. The point of legends is that they don’t want to support these units with updates and put time in to maintaining rules for units they don’t sell anymore but allow people to still use them. A “side effect” of that is they will eventually slowly die of neglect but it’s not the purpose of the rules.

Intent can sometimes be tricky to parse but here it explicit, use the rules in all games even match play but not in tournaments. Simple.

 vipoid wrote:

 Tawnis wrote:
That seems to be the current way people expect things. It's just at odds with how Legends are presented. The way GW talks about them, the assumption SHOULD be that they are always allowed unless stated otherwise.

If GW wanted them to be always allowed, they'd put them in the respective codices.

The entire point of Legends is to de facto remove units from the game.

They might technically still have rules, but the obvious intent is for them to slowly die of neglect.

The entire point of Legends is to remove them from TOURNAMENTS, which is exactly why GW doesn't say you you need your opponent's permission in non-tournament games.

Andykp wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Tawnis wrote:
That seems to be the current way people expect things. It's just at odds with how Legends are presented. The way GW talks about them, the assumption SHOULD be that they are always allowed unless stated otherwise.

If GW wanted them to be always allowed, they'd put them in the respective codices.

The entire point of Legends is to de facto remove units from the game.

They might technically still have rules, but the obvious intent is for them to slowly die of neglect.

GW have said they are always allowed except in tournament’s. It’s pretty clear what they want. The point of legends is that they don’t want to support these units with updates and put time in to maintaining rules for units they don’t sell anymore but allow people to still use them. A “side effect” of that is they will eventually slowly die of neglect but it’s not the purpose of the rules.

Intent can sometimes be tricky to parse but here it explicit, use the rules in all games even match play but not in tournaments. Simple.

It's important your competitive format doesn't revolve around models that players cannot buy. This is why new promo models go straight to legends as well.

 vipoid wrote:

 Tawnis wrote:
That seems to be the current way people expect things. It's just at odds with how Legends are presented. The way GW talks about them, the assumption SHOULD be that they are always allowed unless stated otherwise.

If GW wanted them to be always allowed, they'd put them in the respective codices.

The entire point of Legends is to de facto remove units from the game.

They might technically still have rules, but the obvious intent is for them to slowly die of neglect.

There can be more than one reason as to why something happens. I don't deny that what you've said is certainly an aspect of it. However, it also goes to making their work to balance competitive 40k easier when they take out the 100+ Space Marine units that are old as dirt and few people use until someone figures out an exploitable rule with one.

As someone who loves to play with my old models, Legends are a great way to handle this separation, keep them out of competitive, but still give them rules. It's not like the still don't just straight up remove units from the game either. Commisar Yarrick, a long time fan favourite, never even went to Legends for some reason, just straight into the dustbin. Why do that when lots of other less notable characters and units get Legends... no clue.

My point is that while I have no idea the extent of what GW is thinking of the subject matter, saying that it can be boiled down to just one thing is a vast oversimplification of the Legends discussion. They've said what they want us to think they're doing, they're doing something a little different that leads people to speculate, and there's lots more that we likely haven't the foggiest idea about.

All we can do is decide what to do with the tools that are given to us (or make our own). Which was the point of the discussion. How can we best handle the situation we're in so that we can all enjoy the models we have.

Yes, in a way.
The obsession with balance is ruining the game in general, and it all stems from GW catering to the competitive crowd way more than they should.

This game started out as a very casual ‘beer and chips’ game, and the attempt to port it over to the tournament scene to make it run more smoothly has taken away so many fun and engaging mechanics imho.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
Yes, in a way.
The obsession with balance is ruining the game in general, and it all stems from GW catering to the competitive crowd way more than they should.

This game started out as a very casual ‘beer and chips’ game, and the attempt to port it over to the tournament scene to make it run more smoothly has taken away so many fun and engaging mechanics imho.

I don't have a problem with balance per se, it's good to play a game that feels relatively even.

What I like the least is the current design paradigm of abstract special rules for every unit, to distinguish them from each other. They are often pretty disconnected from the unit's capabilities, clearly just there as a rule to fill a hole or distinguish them from other similar units in the army. This more than anything pulls me out of the game, reduces the RPG aspect and enhances the CCG style of play.

For example:

Guard infantry
Defenders of Humanity: Each time a ranged attack targets this unit, if this unit is within range of an objective marker you control, models in this unit have the Benefit of Cover against that attack.

Cadians
Shock Troops: At the end of your Command phase, if this unit is within range of an objective marker you control, that objective marker remains under your control, even if you have no models within range of it, until your opponent controls it at the start or end of any turn.

Kriegers
Grim Demeanour: Each time a model in this unit makes an attack, add 1 to the Hit roll if this unit is below its Starting Strength, and add 1 to the Wound roll as well if this unit is Below Half-strength.

Eldar voidreavers
Reavers of the Void: Each time a model in this unit makes an attack, re-roll a Hit roll of 1. If the target of that attack is an enemy unit within range of an objective marker, you can re-roll the Hit roll instead.

Stormblades: At the end of your Command phase, if this unit is within range of an objective marker you control, that objective marker remains under your control, even if you have no models within range of it, until your opponent controls it at the start or end of any turn.


The mechanics are fine, but they have virtually no direct connection to the unit. A grim demeanor doesn't mean you can suddenly punch space marine heads off, and being a stormblade has no affect on a location on the table and its 'control'.



The more rules like these GW uses, the less the game feels like playing in 40k, and the more it feels like an abstract game. The RPG immersion of 40k was one of the main strengths. They might as well just remove the name of the rule entirely, because it could just say 'gazorpazorp' and it would have as much meaning...

I don't know about that. A grim demeanor might mean that you respond to suffering casualties with all-consuming vengeance.

Voidreavers- These pilots train so extensively in pursuit of their path that critical errors seldom occur, and in times of great need, they are able to focus their attention beyond normal limits.

Guard Infantry- While the guard are known for selfless acts of courage, when they are defending critical positions, they are taught to defend at all costs, going to ground to maximize their odds of survival.

Sticky Objectives are kinda weird to rationalize, but I think it comes down the unit's capacity to maintain monitoring/ attention to the objectives they walk away from; it could also represent a fearsome reputation for booby traps or the capacity to fire indirectly or from great distances.

The way that GW has to write their rules in lawyer speak is a factor. I'm a trained actor, and part of what we do is known as "the willing suspension of disbelief" - it doesn't take a lot to justify a rule. If I can get part way there, that's enough for me.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
Yes, in a way.
The obsession with balance is ruining the game in general, and it all stems from GW catering to the competitive crowd way more than they should.

This game started out as a very casual ‘beer and chips’ game, and the attempt to port it over to the tournament scene to make it run more smoothly has taken away so many fun and engaging mechanics imho.

+1000

Plentiful wargear options (with points), kitbashing, painting space marines in non-standard/codex colors, etc.; don't see much of that anymore, and a lot of the reason is due to this obsession with turning a casual beer and pretzels game into a competitive tournament game (ex. mission packs/"seasons," ugh . . .). When was the last time a 40k rulebook actually promoted modeling/customizing your figures and scratch-building terrain? 3rd or 4th edition? Now the focus is on monopose figures (cut into way too many pieces on sprues) with little to no customization options, and L-shaped ruins terrain placed in perfectly symmetrical "tournament" table layouts.
Barf.

IMHO the "beer and pretzel" aspect was mostly killed by the pickup game culture, tournament play was just the natural evolution from pickup game culture.

Anybody who still believes that the removal of wargear options, points, encouraging kitbashing etc. was anything to do with balance is just so wildly off the reservation that it's almost comical.

 Gnarlly wrote:

Plentiful wargear options (with points)

Agree 100% - this is your strongest point.

 Gnarlly wrote:

painting space marines in non-standard/codex colors, etc.; don't see much of that anymore

Because detachment rules are no longer linked to sub-faction (which I personally dislike), this is actually easier to do than at most points in the history of the game. Now Space Marines, admittedly are a bit of an exception in that named chapters DO have detachment options that are not available outside the subfaction, but everyone liked the fact that you can now paint an army like Whitescars and give them detachment rules that focus on, say siege warfare or whatever else strikes your fancy.

And in 8th and 9th, while detachment rules were tied to subfaction, every faction in the game also had build-your-own chapter, regiment, Kabal, etc. These were given more emphasis in 9th, because they were a core a part of the dex, whereas in 8th, they came in the PA books, and I'm not sure every faction got them.

When GW decoupled detachment rules from subfaction in 10th, there wasn't really a need for build-your-own, because now any subfaction could choose any set of detachment rules it liked- again, BA, DA, SW and a few other chapters do get EXTRA options that are only available to them, but they are not forbidden to choose any of the detachment rules from the core SM dex as far as I know.

 Gnarlly wrote:

and a lot of the reason is due to this obsession with turning a casual beer and pretzels game into a competitive tournament game (ex. mission packs/"seasons," ugh . . .).

Maybe. I don't disagree... but I don't mind seasons- that's better now than it was in 9th. In 10th, a season= a new mission deck for matched players and a new book for Crusaders. In 9th, a season was a Matched Mission Packs, two Crusade Mission Packs and two hardcover books which contained both Crusade and Matched content. By comparison, 10th ed seasons aren't that big a deal, and only tourney types are even obligated to pay attention.

 Gnarlly wrote:

When was the last time a 40k rulebook actually promoted modeling/customizing your figures and scratch-building terrain? 3rd or 4th edition?

Well, that depends on how far you think they have to go for to qualify as "promoting." I know, you're talking about content in rulebooks, and sure I'll be the first to admit that it's definitely light in rulebooks... But then one could argue that isn't necessarily the best place for this kind of information. I don't remember the last White Dwarf I've seen without at least one conversion or piece of custom terrain. Some issues are heavier on this than others, but it's there. They also aren't often presented as full "how-to" articles; they're usually just featured photos... but they're still there.

9th ed's Octarius books contained rules for looted vehicles, and Crusade is a great source of relics and upgrades that beg for conversion. Even without these, every detachment has Enhancements- not all of these are appropriate for conversion, but many are.

 Gnarlly wrote:

Now the focus is on monopose figures (cut into way too many pieces on sprues) with little to no customization options

Again, I don't disagree- especially with the options part, which goes back to that first, strongest argument you made. And yes, the way they chop the sprues does make it harder to convert than it could be... But I will say ANY plastic is easier to convert than ANY metal or resin, and the shift to an exclusively plastic range is a positive change, even if I concede that it could be made easier than it is.

 Gnarlly wrote:

and L-shaped ruins terrain placed in perfectly symmetrical "tournament" table layouts.
Barf.

I know people get upset when any puts any responsibility for their own enjoyment back on the players themselves, but this realyy is a you/your store/your league/ your tournament organizer problem. I don't think the L shaped, symmetical terrain guides appear in any GW rule books (though I didn't bother with the 10th ed BRB). They have been posted to Warcom with clearly labelled recomendations that the guidelines are designed for tournament use only. If you, your store or your league choose to apply GW's "for tournament use only" guidelines to non-tournament games, that is not GW's fault.

One of the things I see a lot of in forums these days is an "If it's not perfect, it's garbage" attitude. That mostly comes from ultra-competitive analyses of units... But it creeps into everything. There is certainly room for a lot of improvement in 10th. There was room for improvement even in my beloved 9th. There will always be room for improvement in ANY edition, and it is possible to rank various editions against each other based on various criteria. 10th is far from my favourite edition for numerous reasons... But I don't think it's an unplayable dumpster fire either.

As someone who plays a homebrew successor chapter, I find the complaint that nobody paints non-standard schemes very funny.

 RaptorusRex wrote:
As someone who plays a homebrew successor chapter, I find the complaint that nobody paints non-standard schemes very funny.

I'm also on team Homebrew Chapter. Though I don't see too many other people in my local group playing homebrew armies. (I saw a fair few at Play On's Narrative Tournament this year though.)

 PenitentJake wrote:
I don't know about that. A grim demeanor might mean that you respond to suffering casualties with all-consuming vengeance.

Voidreavers- These pilots train so extensively in pursuit of their path that critical errors seldom occur, and in times of great need, they are able to focus their attention beyond normal limits.

Guard Infantry- While the guard are known for selfless acts of courage, when they are defending critical positions, they are taught to defend at all costs, going to ground to maximize their odds of survival.

Sticky Objectives are kinda weird to rationalize, but I think it comes down the unit's capacity to maintain monitoring/ attention to the objectives they walk away from; it could also represent a fearsome reputation for booby traps or the capacity to fire indirectly or from great distances.

The way that GW has to write their rules in lawyer speak is a factor. I'm a trained actor, and part of what we do is known as "the willing suspension of disbelief" - it doesn't take a lot to justify a rule. If I can get part way there, that's enough for me.

No amount of all consuming vengeance makes a human punch hard enough to kill a space marine easier. At most that's a psychological boost to their morale. It's not going to give them physiology they don't have...

If you can go to ground near something important, you can go to ground anytime. That's not something that is special.

There's justifying and then there's verisimilitude and I prefer the latter. Nothing about kriegers says they get super punchy when they get sad, but it does suggest they are less likely to run.

Those were just examples as well, there are plenty of special rules that never existed previously nor where ever associated with the unit they're attached to that clearly look artificially added.

 Hellebore wrote:

 PenitentJake wrote:
I don't know about that. A grim demeanor might mean that you respond to suffering casualties with all-consuming vengeance.

Voidreavers- These pilots train so extensively in pursuit of their path that critical errors seldom occur, and in times of great need, they are able to focus their attention beyond normal limits.

Guard Infantry- While the guard are known for selfless acts of courage, when they are defending critical positions, they are taught to defend at all costs, going to ground to maximize their odds of survival.

Sticky Objectives are kinda weird to rationalize, but I think it comes down the unit's capacity to maintain monitoring/ attention to the objectives they walk away from; it could also represent a fearsome reputation for booby traps or the capacity to fire indirectly or from great distances.

The way that GW has to write their rules in lawyer speak is a factor. I'm a trained actor, and part of what we do is known as "the willing suspension of disbelief" - it doesn't take a lot to justify a rule. If I can get part way there, that's enough for me.

No amount of all consuming vengeance makes a human punch hard enough to kill a space marine easier. At most that's a psychological boost to their morale. It's not going to give them physiology they don't have...

If you can go to ground near something important, you can go to ground anytime. That's not something that is special.

There's justifying and then there's verisimilitude and I prefer the latter. Nothing about kriegers says they get super punchy when they get sad, but it does suggest they are less likely to run.

Those were just examples as well, there are plenty of special rules that never existed previously nor where ever associated with the unit they're attached to that clearly look artificially added.

Well look, you and I don't have to agree, but before I agree to disagree and let this lie, I'll just point out that the rule you cited has ZERO to do with punching; the units we are speaking of use weapons, and weapons perform better when their user is cold and clear headed enough to place blows more accurately, or quickly, or to wait for the proper opening, or to feign weakness to capitalize on the towering arrogance of a superior opponent. These changes can be represented in a number of ways; if you insist that a strength increase always means hitting harder without acknowledging the role of accuracy, then we can play a little game where I kick your butt first, and then kick your nads with exactly the same amount of force and you can tell me that the second kick felt no stronger than the first. Even that test doesn't paint the full picture, because as I mentioned, the buff applies to attacks made by weapons, including melee and ranged weapons (at least according to what you wrote- I didn't double check the data cards).

Furthermore, in my opinion the "Indestructible Marine" trope is something that's been taken WAY too far by crappy BL authors who don't play the game. Yes, they're good- great even, which is why even with these rules you're so upset about, they'll still win even when outnumbered 5:1 by guardsmen infantry 9 times out of 10. It's certainly fair to write that they're better than most, but bolter porn is for suckas, which is why I always say BL ain't lore- it's fiction based on lore.

As for being able to go to ground any time, the question is not whether the unit has the ability- it's that their training tells them only to use said ability when defending an objective, because if not defending an objective, their overseers insist that their lives aren't worth protecting. When not defending an objective, these men would rather sell their lives than hunker down and cower, because that's how they've been indoctrinated.

But like I said, it's okay for us not to agree. I certainly do agree there's a difference between justifying and verisimilitude; I imagine different people put the line between the two in different places and you're entitled to put that line wherever it feels right for you.

 Gibblets wrote:

CorwinB wrote:
Isn't part of the problem here with Legends units that there are a lot of people in clubs/FLGS that consider casual games as tournament practice, and only want to apply competitive list building and rules (terrain...) ?

That's my problem. I was recently motivated into trying again and yep all 12 people were not interested in anything other than tourney practice games because of the perpetual league running. Maybe in another 4 months Ill try again; I do miss having a hobby.

- amen to that, between the planned obsolescence putting an egg timer on everything that excites me and the rules set revolving around monetising a bunch of events, it's exhausted me. Strongly considering going back to lego architecture as a hobby

 Hellebore wrote:


I don't have a problem with balance per se, it's good to play a game that feels relatively even.

My take on it is balance is nice, but I don't necessarily hate imbalance - so long as the game/scenario is interesting.

If the game is capable of supporting fair/interesting matches with a bit of front-loaded work/accommodation and knowledge by the players, I'm OK with that.

When it comes to balance, I'm a realist. As I see it, we'll never get the kind of 'balance' that is usually demanded out of the book and universally applied where everything is an equal choice. the best we can get is 'some things match well.against some other things, under some circumstances and at least some of the time'. It's why I perceive skills such 'game building' and 'relative balancing' as amongst the most important to have in this hobby.

 Hellebore wrote:

What I like the least is the current design paradigm of abstract special rules for every unit, to distinguish them from each other. They are often pretty disconnected from the unit's capabilities, clearly just there as a rule to fill a hole or distinguish them from other similar units in the army. This more than anything pulls me out of the game, reduces the RPG aspect and enhances the CCG style of play.

Ah yes, 'special snowflake rules'. Personal pet peeve. Then again I'm.from the school of 'less is more' and the era when power armour was t4 3+ save, regardless of whether it was mk2, 3, 4 etc, ccws were ccw's regardless of shape and bolter were s4 ap5, regardless of 'pattern'. Now every different 'role' requires a separate unit (and kit!) with slight and inconsequential and arbitrary differences, and every bit of gear has a different profile/special rule just for the sake of it. There's a reason we went back to 90s'cromunda rather than stick with the new game - just got fed up with the million variants of 'big melee weapon that does something slightly different on a roll of a 6' instead of 'blunt/blade'.

Deadnight wrote:

I'm.from the school of 'less is more' and the era when power armour was t4 3+ save, regardless of whether it was mk2, 3, 4 etc

This did not change.

Deadnight wrote:

ccws were ccw's regardless of shape

weren't power weapons/thunder hammers/chainswords always in the game?
And CCW are the crappy attacks that gun-wielding units have?

Deadnight wrote:

and bolter were s4 ap5 regardless of 'pattern'.

fair enough on that one.

Deadnight wrote:

Now every different 'role' requires a separate unit (and kit!) with slight and inconsequential and arbitrary differences, and every bit of gear has a different profile/special rule just for the sake of it.

Oh yeah, that was totally different back when tacticals/assault/devastator/scout/terminator (both the melee and shooty versions) / veteran (both the melee and shooty version) were the current models.

Deadnight wrote:

There's a reason we went back to 90s'cromunda rather than stick with the new game - just got fed up with the million variants of 'big melee weapon that does something slightly different on a roll of a 6' instead of 'blunt/blade'.

Necromunda litterally has more of that variation that you seem to be complaining about.... in that game a shank and an exacto blade have different stats...

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

I'm.from the school of 'less is more' and the era when power armour was t4 3+ save, regardless of whether it was mk2, 3, 4 etc

This did not change.

Apologies - misremembering a different conversation where I was surprised that in the current design environment, the various marks of power armour didn't have extra rules (mk6 being more 'stealthy', 'mk3' being 'harder etc - though maybe i am thinking of some if that in the heresy game? ) back in the day it was 'just' power armour, as you correctly point out.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
[

Deadnight wrote:

ccws were ccw's regardless of shape

weren't power weapons/thunder hammers/chainswords always in the game?
And CCW are the crappy attacks that gun-wielding units have?
[

Yes they were, but maybe youre misunderstanding my point, or maybe i must have phrased it poorly. Back in the day, unless it was a 'power weapon', 'power fist', or 'thunderhammer', a melee weapon was a 'ccw', regardless of whether it was a stick, pipe, knuckleduster, nunchuck, chainsword, dagger/bayonet, sword, axe, brick-on-a-rope, severed head etc.

It was sixth I think that made axes, mauls, swords etc all different profiles with special rules and that.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

Now every different 'role' requires a separate unit (and kit!) with slight and inconsequential and arbitrary differences, and every bit of gear has a different profile/special rule just for the sake of it.

Oh yeah, that was totally different back when tacticals/assault/devastator/scout/terminator (both the melee and shooty versions) / veteran (both the melee and shooty version) were the current models.

No. Not my point. Let me explain.

More thinking along the lines of, for example phobos-armoured marines - if we're gonna spook people we take (checks notes), our skeletor helms, 'long' pistols or carbines and knives. If we infiltrate we take, hur hur, TWO KNIVES INSTEAD and a different bolter (don't mix em up) and if we're shooting the fools in cover we get the fancy goggles and a DIFFERENT BOLTER again.

Just seems like completely arbitrary decisions on 'different gear for the sake of it'. Back in the day, all variants of phobos would probably have had a generic bolter, bolt pistol and ccw.

A marine swapping a bolter for a rocket launcher kind of makes sense, swapping a bolter for a bolter or two knives instead of one knife, exclusively for an arbitrary tactical niche just seems a bit ridiculous as a concept to me.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
[
Necromunda litterally has more of that variation that you seem to be complaining about.... in that game a shank and an exacto blade have different stats...

true, but not where im comung from. We play 'bare bones low power necromunda'. Even when we played the 'new' game for a long time, we keep to 'basic' things because we couldnt be bothered with all the extra faff. Then we switched to oldcromunda and really just use the original rulebook which imo simplified things a bit more and has swords, clubs, whips, 2h weapons, chainswords and the 'power' weapons. Basic weapins were autoguns, boltguns, shotguns and lasguns. etc

Point to take home though was that we found the huge number of weapon variants a turn-off in the 'new' game. Much prefer a 'simpler' list of criteria to choose from. That and not having aa. :p Less is more