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.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Rules?
Nah, we’re good.

Design philosophy?
Customization. Please.

Would you elucidate on that topic?

Is this model customization, or the Tau battlesuit issue where you can only use certain weapon configurations now?

Both.

I actually don’t mind the Battlesuit changes specifically-it would be nice to slap a fusion blaster into an otherwise anti-infantry squad, but I’m personally okay with having different suits with different roles.

But there should be actual options within units, not just “Pick every one of the best options.”
And a lot of units that are one-note should be opened up, to let them cover different roles.

For my own army, what if Plaguebearers could take a shield for an extra wound or improved invulnerable?
Or two-handed weapons, for more damage?
Both of which are better than one plaguesword, so that option should be cheaper than the other two. But that doesn’t merit its own datasheet.

So what you're asking for is a range expansion to chaos daemons? Or death guard, based on current rumours?

I don't see why it can't be shields with better defensive profile and a small weak melee attack, a plaguesword with anti-infantry and more attacks, then a bigger 2h weapon with more damage but no anti-infantry and fewer attacks. All in one unit, at one points cost.

I'll throw mine out there - old restrictions for moving & firing with rapid fire/heavy, 4th ed style.

Armour facings and blast templates. Scatter dice is a maybe.

Specifically pinning, but if possible moral in general including pinning.

40k has never done moral justice, and always could've been massively improved by leaning into the moral system. However what we used to have, or specifically what HH currently has, is MUCH better than modern 40k.

 morganfreeman wrote:
Specifically pinning, but if possible moral in general including pinning.

40k has never done moral justice, and always could've been massively improved by leaning into the moral system. However what we used to have, or specifically what HH currently has, is MUCH better than modern 40k.

Eh... It's never felt right for Marines, Custodes, Mechanicum, Orks, Necrons, Tyranids, Daemons...
Really most factions. It never felt right for them to out and out run away. Pinning could be nice, but more than that feels out of character for most units.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 morganfreeman wrote:
Specifically pinning, but if possible moral in general including pinning.

40k has never done moral justice, and always could've been massively improved by leaning into the moral system. However what we used to have, or specifically what HH currently has, is MUCH better than modern 40k.

Eh... It's never felt right for Marines, Custodes, Mechanicum, Orks, Necrons, Tyranids, Daemons...
Really most factions. It never felt right for them to out and out run away. Pinning could be nice, but more than that feels out of character for most units.

Running away makes sense for pretty much every faction, especially considering 'running away' isn't just 'fleeing in blind terror'. Tactical withdrawls / repositions are what they represent for marines and such. Especially given retreats tend to cover like, 6-10 seconds of actual 'real time' in the game.

That said I agree, obviously, that it's never been great though. Both games could've benefited massively from suppression mechanics and other ways to disrupt action beyond / instead of just "you can't do anything". Incremental negatives and such.

 morganfreeman wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Really most factions. It never felt right for them to out and out run away. Pinning could be nice, but more than that feels out of character for most units.

Running away makes sense for pretty much every faction, especially considering 'running away' isn't just 'fleeing in blind terror'. Tactical withdrawls / repositions are what they represent for marines and such. Especially given retreats tend to cover like, 6-10 seconds of actual 'real time' in the game.

Except it wasn't a "tactical withdrawal" it was a blind, disordered panic.

Hence why units that ran while in combat could be utterly annihilated, even by units that could barely scratch them otherwise.

Hell, these "tactically withdrawing" units had to make morale tests to regroup, otherwise they'd "tactically retreat" right off the table and were counted as destroyed.

I guess they just decided to reposition on a different world.

 vipoid wrote:

 morganfreeman wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Really most factions. It never felt right for them to out and out run away. Pinning could be nice, but more than that feels out of character for most units.

Running away makes sense for pretty much every faction, especially considering 'running away' isn't just 'fleeing in blind terror'. Tactical withdrawls / repositions are what they represent for marines and such. Especially given retreats tend to cover like, 6-10 seconds of actual 'real time' in the game.

Except it wasn't a "tactical withdrawal" it was a blind, disordered panic.

Hence why units that ran while in combat could be utterly annihilated, even by units that could barely scratch them otherwise.

Hell, these "tactically withdrawing" units had to make morale tests to regroup, otherwise they'd "tactically retreat" right off the table and were counted as destroyed.

I guess they just decided to reposition on a different world.

Not for marines though because ‘they shall know no downside’. They immediately regrouped when they finished moving or instead of being destroyed if caught by pursuers.

Lord Zarkov wrote:

Not for marines though because ‘they shall know no downside’. They immediately regrouped when they finished moving or instead of being destroyed if caught by pursuers.

Granted. I was thinking of all the other factions that actually have to play by the rules.

Incidentally, I remember being rather frustrated back in 3rd/4th when the Necron codex stated something to the effect of "Necrons do not suffer fear but may retreat if it is logical to do so."

And then how that actually played out was that a 20-man Necron unit would take maybe 2 wounds in combat and decide it was ""logical"" to try and retreat, even though their crap initiative meant they were all but guaranteed to be annihilated beyond even the ability of We'll Be Back to recover.

Some sort of benefit for rear shots for vehicles. Like increasing AP by 1 if you get a rear shot.

Speaking of Necrons can we bring back Phasing Out...

Does anyone miss the Force Organization Chart?

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
Speaking of Necrons can we bring back Phasing Out...

Does anyone miss the Force Organization Chart?

Why bring back Phasing Out?

And plenty of people do. I miss some of the army-building limits, though I think the Force Org chart was pretty flawed as a universal list making tool.

It was a unique part of their army. The Necrons should be very scary, very super powered with models that won't die and a relentless assault with weapons that can kill everything from infantry to armoured vehicles.

But they had a weakness. If you could just knock them down for one turn... maybe, just maybe you could win.

I loved the old necrons! A win was always fun then.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
It was a unique part of their army. The Necrons should be very scary, very super powered with models that won't die and a relentless assault with weapons that can kill everything from infantry to armoured vehicles.

But they had a weakness. If you could just knock them down for one turn... maybe, just maybe you could win.

I loved the old necrons! A win was always fun then.

Eh... I think it'd be good as a narrative scenario or similar set of rules.
I don't think it'd be good for general use.

Though GW should do more to encourage more than tournament missions.

Then that's what I would bring back, the narrative stuff.

I loved all the fun old fluffy missions full of chaos and being forced to change your gameplay on the fly.

There were a bunch of missions that had disappearing objectives and assassination missions.

Oh, and random game length! No more knowing that you only have 5 turns to play.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
Speaking of Necrons can we bring back Phasing Out...

Sure, I can play just fine with Phase Out.
I'm afraid though that a lot of new Necron players (those who've only ever played 8e+) heads would explode if they had to contend with having an auto-lose condition built into their army....

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
Does anyone miss the Force Organization Chart?

Nope. I spent the better part of 20 years dealing with that limitation. I greatly prefer the current setup. Though I can also quite happily deal with paying CP in 9th to access different detachment formations.
And if I want to? Nothing in the current rules prevents me from building a force along the old FOC pattern.
Heck, some of newer my forces wouldn't even be legal under the old FOC.

I can't pick a single change to make, since essentially everything was better in one or more past editions.

Maybe the only thing which I wouldn't want to bring back at all would be 6th's weird janky challenge rules.

This is tough.
Not necessarily a rule, but a general mechanic.

Certain T levels that can’t be wounded by weapons that are too weak.

S2 guns damaging T12 vehicles is the stupidest thing they’ve done with the game.
T more than double S? No wounding. S2 can wound T4 but not T5+

I’m tired of people just spamming low S attacks and fishing for 6s and getting results.

Separate point costs for gear.

I really like 10th edition overall, it might be the best edition of the game otherwise, but this thing really annoys me. It is just sad that so many options are outright not worth taking and you're just punishing yourselves if you do so.

Like I want to give units variety of weapons. Some of my marine sergeants have power swords or even chainswords, but under the current rules I should just give them all power fists. That is just boring.

And even if it might first seem that fixed costs make list building easier, in practice it doesn't. With old style if you were five points over you could just swap one weapon to a cheaper one, but with the fixed cost you need to juggle whole units and alter the composition of the whole army.

 Crimson wrote:
Separate point costs for gear.

I really like 10th edition overall, it might be the best edition of the game otherwise, but this thing really annoys me. It is just sad that so many options are outright not worth taking and you're just punishing yourselves if you do so.

Like I want to give units variety of weapons. Some of my marine sergeants have power swords or even chainswords, but under the current rules I should just give them all power fists. That is just boring.

And even if it might first seem that fixed costs make list building easier, in practice it doesn't. With old style if you were five points over you could just swap one weapon to a cheaper one, but with the fixed cost you need to juggle whole units and alter the composition of the whole army.

maybe just balance the weapon options better within a unit.

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Separate point costs for gear.

I really like 10th edition overall, it might be the best edition of the game otherwise, but this thing really annoys me. It is just sad that so many options are outright not worth taking and you're just punishing yourselves if you do so.

Like I want to give units variety of weapons. Some of my marine sergeants have power swords or even chainswords, but under the current rules I should just give them all power fists. That is just boring.

And even if it might first seem that fixed costs make list building easier, in practice it doesn't. With old style if you were five points over you could just swap one weapon to a cheaper one, but with the fixed cost you need to juggle whole units and alter the composition of the whole army.

maybe just balance the weapon options better within a unit.

What's the balance point between a Devastator Squad with four Heavy Bolters and one with two?

The two heavies option is good if you want to stick them in a Rhino, for mobile fire support via Firing Deck, except you're always paying for the full four.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
maybe just balance the weapon options better within a unit.

I theory, but I don't think that is possible in practice, especially as one option is to just not take the stuff at all.

 JNAProductions wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Separate point costs for gear.

I really like 10th edition overall, it might be the best edition of the game otherwise, but this thing really annoys me. It is just sad that so many options are outright not worth taking and you're just punishing yourselves if you do so.

Like I want to give units variety of weapons. Some of my marine sergeants have power swords or even chainswords, but under the current rules I should just give them all power fists. That is just boring.

And even if it might first seem that fixed costs make list building easier, in practice it doesn't. With old style if you were five points over you could just swap one weapon to a cheaper one, but with the fixed cost you need to juggle whole units and alter the composition of the whole army.

maybe just balance the weapon options better within a unit.

What's the balance point between a Devastator Squad with four Heavy Bolters and one with two?

The two heavies option is good if you want to stick them in a Rhino, for mobile fire support via Firing Deck, except you're always paying for the full four.

In roughly 20 years in the hobby I’ve never seen or heard of anyone not taking all 4 heavy weapon options s available, so not really an issue, but you feel free to elucidate me as to what reason anyone would want to do that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
maybe just balance the weapon options better within a unit.

I theory, but I don't think that is possible in practice, especially as one option is to just not take the stuff at all.

Realistically no one is simply not taking any of the options.
I can’t recall any time any one took 0 upgrades on a unit when there were individual points costs for upgrades.
So trying to balance upgrades with no upgrades is kind of a non-issue.

It is completely possible for all of the weapon options in a unit to be relatively closely balanced between each other.

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Separate point costs for gear.

I really like 10th edition overall, it might be the best edition of the game otherwise, but this thing really annoys me. It is just sad that so many options are outright not worth taking and you're just punishing yourselves if you do so.

Like I want to give units variety of weapons. Some of my marine sergeants have power swords or even chainswords, but under the current rules I should just give them all power fists. That is just boring.

And even if it might first seem that fixed costs make list building easier, in practice it doesn't. With old style if you were five points over you could just swap one weapon to a cheaper one, but with the fixed cost you need to juggle whole units and alter the composition of the whole army.

maybe just balance the weapon options better within a unit.

What's the balance point between a Devastator Squad with four Heavy Bolters and one with two?

The two heavies option is good if you want to stick them in a Rhino, for mobile fire support via Firing Deck, except you're always paying for the full four.

In roughly 20 years in the hobby I’ve never seen or heard of anyone not taking all 4 heavy weapon options s available, so not really an issue, but you feel free to elucidate me as to what reason anyone would want to do that.

Rhinos have Firing Deck 2. (And in past editions, they've had similar rules.)
If two heavy weapons were cheaper than four, you could reasonably use it as a pseudo-Razorback with only two heavies in the Dev squad.

But since Devastators are always priced as if they're taking all four heavy weapons, you're significantly overpaying.

 JNAProductions wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Separate point costs for gear.

I really like 10th edition overall, it might be the best edition of the game otherwise, but this thing really annoys me. It is just sad that so many options are outright not worth taking and you're just punishing yourselves if you do so.

Like I want to give units variety of weapons. Some of my marine sergeants have power swords or even chainswords, but under the current rules I should just give them all power fists. That is just boring.

And even if it might first seem that fixed costs make list building easier, in practice it doesn't. With old style if you were five points over you could just swap one weapon to a cheaper one, but with the fixed cost you need to juggle whole units and alter the composition of the whole army.

maybe just balance the weapon options better within a unit.

What's the balance point between a Devastator Squad with four Heavy Bolters and one with two?

The two heavies option is good if you want to stick them in a Rhino, for mobile fire support via Firing Deck, except you're always paying for the full four.

In roughly 20 years in the hobby I’ve never seen or heard of anyone not taking all 4 heavy weapon options s available, so not really an issue, but you feel free to elucidate me as to what reason anyone would want to do that.

Rhinos have Firing Deck 2. (And in past editions, they've had similar rules.)
If two heavy weapons were cheaper than four, you could reasonably use it as a pseudo-Razorback with only two heavies in the Dev squad.

But since Devastators are always priced as if they're taking all four heavy weapons, you're significantly overpaying.

I mean that’s certainly an option…but why would you still hamstring yourself with only 2 heavy weapons once the rhino is destroyed?
With 4 heavies you can still do that, without sacrificing dismounted firepower. Not to mention if you do 2 lascannons and 2 HBs you can choose which two weapons to use based on the situation and what targets are available to you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also initiative and make it actually mean something to fail a leadership test again.

johnpjones1775 wrote:

Spoiler:

 JNAProductions wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Separate point costs for gear.

I really like 10th edition overall, it might be the best edition of the game otherwise, but this thing really annoys me. It is just sad that so many options are outright not worth taking and you're just punishing yourselves if you do so.

Like I want to give units variety of weapons. Some of my marine sergeants have power swords or even chainswords, but under the current rules I should just give them all power fists. That is just boring.

And even if it might first seem that fixed costs make list building easier, in practice it doesn't. With old style if you were five points over you could just swap one weapon to a cheaper one, but with the fixed cost you need to juggle whole units and alter the composition of the whole army.

maybe just balance the weapon options better within a unit.

What's the balance point between a Devastator Squad with four Heavy Bolters and one with two?

The two heavies option is good if you want to stick them in a Rhino, for mobile fire support via Firing Deck, except you're always paying for the full four.

In roughly 20 years in the hobby I’ve never seen or heard of anyone not taking all 4 heavy weapon options s available, so not really an issue, but you feel free to elucidate me as to what reason anyone would want to do that.

Rhinos have Firing Deck 2. (And in past editions, they've had similar rules.)
If two heavy weapons were cheaper than four, you could reasonably use it as a pseudo-Razorback with only two heavies in the Dev squad.

But since Devastators are always priced as if they're taking all four heavy weapons, you're significantly overpaying.

I mean that’s certainly an option…but why would you still hamstring yourself with only 2 heavy weapons once the rhino is destroyed?
With 4 heavies you can still do that, without sacrificing dismounted firepower. Not to mention if you do 2 lascannons and 2 HBs you can choose which two weapons to use based on the situation and what targets are available to you.

To save points. Something that doesn't work in this edition.

 JNAProductions wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

Spoiler:

 JNAProductions wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Separate point costs for gear.

I really like 10th edition overall, it might be the best edition of the game otherwise, but this thing really annoys me. It is just sad that so many options are outright not worth taking and you're just punishing yourselves if you do so.

Like I want to give units variety of weapons. Some of my marine sergeants have power swords or even chainswords, but under the current rules I should just give them all power fists. That is just boring.

And even if it might first seem that fixed costs make list building easier, in practice it doesn't. With old style if you were five points over you could just swap one weapon to a cheaper one, but with the fixed cost you need to juggle whole units and alter the composition of the whole army.

maybe just balance the weapon options better within a unit.

What's the balance point between a Devastator Squad with four Heavy Bolters and one with two?

The two heavies option is good if you want to stick them in a Rhino, for mobile fire support via Firing Deck, except you're always paying for the full four.

In roughly 20 years in the hobby I’ve never seen or heard of anyone not taking all 4 heavy weapon options s available, so not really an issue, but you feel free to elucidate me as to what reason anyone would want to do that.

Rhinos have Firing Deck 2. (And in past editions, they've had similar rules.)
If two heavy weapons were cheaper than four, you could reasonably use it as a pseudo-Razorback with only two heavies in the Dev squad.

But since Devastators are always priced as if they're taking all four heavy weapons, you're significantly overpaying.

I mean that’s certainly an option…but why would you still hamstring yourself with only 2 heavy weapons once the rhino is destroyed?
With 4 heavies you can still do that, without sacrificing dismounted firepower. Not to mention if you do 2 lascannons and 2 HBs you can choose which two weapons to use based on the situation and what targets are available to you.

To save points. Something that doesn't work in this edition.

Lmao years people have been talking about saving points like they’ll get something significant in return for making a unit basically useless.
Want to save points? Don’t take a unit only to hamstring it. You’ll save a lot more points that way. This argument is so stupid and silly.
190pts for a rhino and 5 devs w/ 2 HBs 6 HB shots 3 boltgun shots
Or
200pts for a razorbacks with 5 tactical marines 6HB shots rerolling misses, 5 boltgun shots
(9th points per the codex)
One is significantly better but only 10 more points…

Like I don’t get why you’re trying to build a worse version with less fire power to save…10 points…

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Separate point costs for gear.

I really like 10th edition overall, it might be the best edition of the game otherwise, but this thing really annoys me. It is just sad that so many options are outright not worth taking and you're just punishing yourselves if you do so.

Like I want to give units variety of weapons. Some of my marine sergeants have power swords or even chainswords, but under the current rules I should just give them all power fists. That is just boring.

And even if it might first seem that fixed costs make list building easier, in practice it doesn't. With old style if you were five points over you could just swap one weapon to a cheaper one, but with the fixed cost you need to juggle whole units and alter the composition of the whole army.

maybe just balance the weapon options better within a unit.

What's the balance point between a Devastator Squad with four Heavy Bolters and one with two?

The two heavies option is good if you want to stick them in a Rhino, for mobile fire support via Firing Deck, except you're always paying for the full four.

In roughly 20 years in the hobby I’ve never seen or heard of anyone not taking all 4 heavy weapon options s available, so not really an issue, but you feel free to elucidate me as to what reason anyone would want to do that.

Well then let me be the 1st.
I have a Dev squad in one of my forces that's a Sgt, a bolter marine, & 3 heavy weapons. It's set up this way because originally in editions past I'd made it a 6 man squad + Razorback.
Somewhere along the line, back around 6e, I lost one of heavy weapon marines. :(
And I've just never gotten around to painting up a replacement HW carrier for the squad. It'll happen someday. Eventually. But I've been saying that for a good many years now....
Generally though it's not an issue because this is 3rd Devastator squad & I've got plenty of other units in the case all vying for points/usage.
But every now & then 3rd Dev takes to the field - & invariably someone who doesn't know the story of the missing HW asks "Why do you only have 3 weapons in that squad?"

ccs wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Separate point costs for gear.

I really like 10th edition overall, it might be the best edition of the game otherwise, but this thing really annoys me. It is just sad that so many options are outright not worth taking and you're just punishing yourselves if you do so.

Like I want to give units variety of weapons. Some of my marine sergeants have power swords or even chainswords, but under the current rules I should just give them all power fists. That is just boring.

And even if it might first seem that fixed costs make list building easier, in practice it doesn't. With old style if you were five points over you could just swap one weapon to a cheaper one, but with the fixed cost you need to juggle whole units and alter the composition of the whole army.

maybe just balance the weapon options better within a unit.

What's the balance point between a Devastator Squad with four Heavy Bolters and one with two?

The two heavies option is good if you want to stick them in a Rhino, for mobile fire support via Firing Deck, except you're always paying for the full four.

In roughly 20 years in the hobby I’ve never seen or heard of anyone not taking all 4 heavy weapon options s available, so not really an issue, but you feel free to elucidate me as to what reason anyone would want to do that.

Well then let me be the 1st.
I have a Dev squad in one of my forces that's a Sgt, a bolter marine, & 3 heavy weapons. It's set up this way because originally in editions past I'd made it a 6 man squad + Razorback.
Somewhere along the line, back around 6e, I lost one of heavy weapon marines. :(
And I've just never gotten around to painting up a replacement HW carrier for the squad. It'll happen someday. Eventually. But I've been saying that for a good many years now....
Generally though it's not an issue because this is 3rd Devastator squad & I've got plenty of other units in the case all vying for points/usage.
But every now & then 3rd Dev takes to the field - & invariably someone who doesn't know the story of the missing HW asks "Why do you only have 3 weapons in that squad?"

or you could just count as the bolter guy as a heavy weapon until you add a new heavy weapon dude…it’s literally not any sort of real issue.

johnpjones1775 wrote:

ccs wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Separate point costs for gear.

I really like 10th edition overall, it might be the best edition of the game otherwise, but this thing really annoys me. It is just sad that so many options are outright not worth taking and you're just punishing yourselves if you do so.

Like I want to give units variety of weapons. Some of my marine sergeants have power swords or even chainswords, but under the current rules I should just give them all power fists. That is just boring.

And even if it might first seem that fixed costs make list building easier, in practice it doesn't. With old style if you were five points over you could just swap one weapon to a cheaper one, but with the fixed cost you need to juggle whole units and alter the composition of the whole army.

maybe just balance the weapon options better within a unit.

What's the balance point between a Devastator Squad with four Heavy Bolters and one with two?

The two heavies option is good if you want to stick them in a Rhino, for mobile fire support via Firing Deck, except you're always paying for the full four.

In roughly 20 years in the hobby I’ve never seen or heard of anyone not taking all 4 heavy weapon options s available, so not really an issue, but you feel free to elucidate me as to what reason anyone would want to do that.

Well then let me be the 1st.
I have a Dev squad in one of my forces that's a Sgt, a bolter marine, & 3 heavy weapons. It's set up this way because originally in editions past I'd made it a 6 man squad + Razorback.
Somewhere along the line, back around 6e, I lost one of heavy weapon marines. :(
And I've just never gotten around to painting up a replacement HW carrier for the squad. It'll happen someday. Eventually. But I've been saying that for a good many years now....
Generally though it's not an issue because this is 3rd Devastator squad & I've got plenty of other units in the case all vying for points/usage.
But every now & then 3rd Dev takes to the field - & invariably someone who doesn't know the story of the missing HW asks "Why do you only have 3 weapons in that squad?"

or you could just count as the bolter guy as a heavy weapon until you add a new heavy weapon dude…it’s literally not any sort of real issue.

It might not be any sort of real issue to you.
But I have higher standards.
So that bolter guy will always be a bolter guy & if it takes me a day or 4 more editions to replace the AWOL heavy trooper? Then so be it.

 JNAProductions wrote:
What's the balance point between a Devastator Squad with four Heavy Bolters and one with two?

The two heavies option is good if you want to stick them in a Rhino, for mobile fire support via Firing Deck, except you're always paying for the full four.

How many people were really bringing a devastator squad with 2 HB and 2 regular bolters?