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.

In 3rd/4th ed. I used to run a Blood Angels Devastator Squad with NO heavy weapons and just a Veteran Sergeant upgrade. A cheap Heavy Support choice which could deploy aggressively and force enemy deployment back was handy.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
In 3rd/4th ed. I used to run a Blood Angels Devastator Squad with NO heavy weapons and just a Veteran Sergeant upgrade. A cheap Heavy Support choice which could deploy aggressively and force enemy deployment back was handy.

Sorry, you were clearly having fun wrong.

Please hand over your army to the nearest GW Officer for disposal.

So I don't even necessarily mean stuff like devastator without max heavy weapons. I can accept that the heavy weapon squad is supposed to carry heavy weapons. Fair enough.

But I had a primaris captain and lieutenant, both armed with a power weapon and bolt pistol. And GW still sells a lieutenants with that loadout. But that is rubbish now. I had to make a new lieutenant with a fist, heavy bolt pistol and bolter. Several of my sergeants have suboptimal weapons such as power swords and chainswords, instead of much more effective power fists or thunder hammers. Several of my tanks don't have hunter killer missiles.

There is a ton of stuff like that, where several modelling options exists, but game wise some of them are just simply bad choices. I am not a power gamer, but it still bugs me a bit that I ma directly punished for my aesthetic choices.

And even if I would not care about aesthetics and were fine with equipping everything with the best choice, it is still annoying as a lot of us obviously have models that were built during the previous editions. And it creates a trap for newbies as well. They might look at the instructions, see that there are several built options, and not instantly realise that some of those are just outright bad and you should not actually built your models that way.

Another unit where not taking max gear made sense were scouts. You could have a sniper squad with camo cloaks and a ML for backfield camping, or a bare-bones squad for screening or grabbing midfield objectives. Different gear for different roles.

The fundamental point is that different performing loadouts for units cost different amounts in points.

It didn't really matter if you always took max upgrades on a unit or not; that's more a debate on the specific values for a specific model. The fact is under points you COULD do that.

With the current power-level system (which is power level its just called points) you've no reason at all to take minimum equipment loadouts. If a model has an upgrade you take it because it performs better and costs the same to deploy on the table.

At which point the entire concept of optional upgrades is meaningless.

This is similar to how GW likes to give "every model an ability" even if that ability is something like "gets +1 to save rolls" when there's no ability in the game to remove that upgrade. So functionally the +5 save model is always a 4+ save model and could just be written as a 4+ save model.


Basically GW is creating false choices in the system for no real gain right now. It's a very odd way to create rules for a game and kind of harkens to the whole "a couple of friends playing on the kitchen table" kind of gaming where the rules expect you to have 20years of gaming with a few people so that you know exactly what kind of game you both want when setting up. Max upgrades or not etc...

Another aspect was that weapon upgrades were something you could drop if you were looking to shave a few points off a list.

They were also something you could consider if you had some spare points (particularly the options you might skip over otherwise).

If you look at the Kasrkin, please explain to me why you would take the chainsword over the power sword...

In this new "take everything" system works on some things, like storm bolters on rhinos, it loses a lot of the fine tuning of armies that a lot of hobbyists enjoy.

 vipoid wrote:
Please hand over your army to the nearest GW Officer for disposal.

It's alright officer; GW already invalidated my Blood Angel army

 Lathe Biosas wrote:

In this new "take everything" system works on some things, like storm bolters on rhinos, it loses a lot of the fine tuning of armies that a lot of hobbyists enjoy.

I could be wrong as I only have the Index, but I don't think you can even put the bonus Storm Bolter on a Rhino anymire, just the HK Missile.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:

In this new "take everything" system works on some things, like storm bolters on rhinos, it loses a lot of the fine tuning of armies that a lot of hobbyists enjoy.

I could be wrong as I only have the Index, but I don't think you can even put the bonus Storm Bolter on a Rhino anymire, just the HK Missile.

You are correct. Which is odd.

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 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…

Depends on the unit and your intended uses, as always. During 8th I often ran a unit of Sternguard but took no upgrades, even though they could have taken a ton of options. It kept the unit lean at 180 points, and did what I needed it to do, which is focus on an anti-infantry role.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nevelon wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:

In this new "take everything" system works on some things, like storm bolters on rhinos, it loses a lot of the fine tuning of armies that a lot of hobbyists enjoy.

I could be wrong as I only have the Index, but I don't think you can even put the bonus Storm Bolter on a Rhino anymire, just the HK Missile.

You are correct. Which is odd.

Odd that the option is gone or odd that I'm correct? :p

It's another one of those bewildering losses of options that left me to not invest in 10th/GW. I've got 10 Rhinos with the option for double Storm Bolter from prior editions. Just gonna stick with 'em.

Heh. Odd that there isn’t the option.

It’s been forever since I built a rhino. How many SBs are in the kit? Just the one on the vehicle accessory sprue? Which would explain why you can’t have 2, as that would require something not included in the boc and NMNR. But preds and other rhino chassis still can.

When PL first became a thing I made a hatch gunner with a ML on his shoulder and a pintle SB to add on tanks that now needed all the free options. Because why not? Precursor for 10th.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
If you look at the Kasrkin, please explain to me why you would take the chainsword over the power sword...

In this new "take everything" system works on some things, like storm bolters on rhinos, it loses a lot of the fine tuning of armies that a lot of hobbyists enjoy.

More attacks?

 RaptorusRex wrote:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
If you look at the Kasrkin, please explain to me why you would take the chainsword over the power sword...

In this new "take everything" system works on some things, like storm bolters on rhinos, it loses a lot of the fine tuning of armies that a lot of hobbyists enjoy.

More attacks?

(Hypothetical example, as I’m not familiar with the stats on Kasrkin)

There are a number of options in the game that have a niche, but it’s so tiny to be negligible. Like a chainsword might be the better choice against T3 targets with no armor save, but the power sword is better against literally everything else. In those cases, it’s a trap choice unless you are tailoring against a very specific threat.

It would be one thing if it was a broad niche. Like being good at killing MEQ, but other options were better against other targets.

But for a lot of things the +1 A is not worth the loss in to hit, S AP or whatever the other options grant.

 Nevelon wrote:
Heh. Odd that there isn’t the option.

Not odd. No Model No Rules.

 Nevelon wrote:
Heh. Odd that there isn’t the option.

It’s been forever since I built a rhino. How many SBs are in the kit? Just the one on the vehicle accessory sprue? Which would explain why you can’t have 2, as that would require something not included in the boc and NMNR. But preds and other rhino chassis still can.

When PL first became a thing I made a hatch gunner with a ML on his shoulder and a pintle SB to add on tanks that now needed all the free options. Because why not? Precursor for 10th.

Yeah there's only one in the kit. That didn't stop me from sticking an extra one on my Rhinos for the last five editions though. It's been an option since at least 2nd ed.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
If you look at the Kasrkin, please explain to me why you would take the chainsword over the power sword...

In this new "take everything" system works on some things, like storm bolters on rhinos, it loses a lot of the fine tuning of armies that a lot of hobbyists enjoy.

I agree with the overall sentiment of these last few posts- I liked costed equipment, and I do think GW should bring that back in some form.

However, I am also a role-player/ Crusader; I've always been a rule of cool guy, and if choice A looks cooler than choice B, I'll choose choice A. Also, sometimes relics (Crusade or otherwise) require a certain piece of equipment to replace- my best example here is the Drukhari poison upgrades; my Kabal's story leans heavily into poisons- Lhameaens, poison distillery territories and those upgrades are important to the fluff and theme of the army I'm developing.

Lot's of folks are surprised that I don't max out lance and blast weapons.

 PenitentJake wrote:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
If you look at the Kasrkin, please explain to me why you would take the chainsword over the power sword...

In this new "take everything" system works on some things, like storm bolters on rhinos, it loses a lot of the fine tuning of armies that a lot of hobbyists enjoy.

I agree with the overall sentiment of these last few posts- I liked costed equipment, and I do think GW should bring that back in some form.

However, I am also a role-player/ Crusader; I've always been a rule of cool guy, and if choice A looks cooler than choice B, I'll choose choice A. Also, sometimes relics (Crusade or otherwise) require a certain piece of equipment to replace- my best example here is the Drukhari poison upgrades; my Kabal's story leans heavily into poisons- Lhameaens, poison distillery territories and those upgrades are important to the fluff and theme of the army I'm developing.

Lot's of folks are surprised that I don't max out lance and blast weapons.

Agreed. I'll put a lesser option on a model for rp reasons, for aesthetic reasons, for variety and ultimately when it comes to options like this they really aren't going to matter anyway, I get that some people like min maxing but plenty of people also don't really care about that.

I get the argument, I'd prefer points on individual wargear too but let's not pretend an example like this is really a huge deal.

I would like WL traits and Relics instead of just enhancements. I think enhancements fit 10th, it's what's needed to fill out points and if you made them power combos like 8th ed WL trait and Relic combos then they wouldn't fill the role they need to fill as 10th doesn't let you buy upgrades or single extra models to fill points. It's also simpler which also fits 10th design paradigm.

Being able to take 4+ items on one character and a dozen across your army like in WHFB is unnecessary, just 2-4 across your army and at the very most 3 on a single character would be great for allowing you to make the army your own. As powerful as the combos were they were still limited, it was something like double damage output on a character at most, that's a couple of hundred points which was pretty broken but not actually super broken.

I am not sure whether to have detachment WL traits and faction relics or universal WL traits and detachment relics. If I were to implement it I'd do the latter because it'd be less work I think. I would love to hear whether you'd be more interested in detachment relics or detachment WL traits? Do you find one type of fluff more appealing currently even though they have the same crunch?

I don't care too much for relics (they feel about the same as enhancements, IMO), but a specific Warlord trait to make the actual Warlord stand out would be very nice.

I wouldn't mind either a selection of, say, six basic Warlord traits which all Warlords choose from, or instead, two or three options per detachment/Codex.

Unique characters either have their own unique Warlord trait on their datasheet which only triggers if they're he Warlord, or it's locked to one of the faction/generic ones (if Warlord traits are assigned that way).

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I don't care too much for relics (they feel about the same as enhancements, IMO),

To my mind, the differences are:

- Relics were more numerous. Even the less-generous codices generally gave you twice as many as you get Enhancements.

- Relics were largely universal (in that most of your stock was available regardless of what subfaction you were using), whereas there are no universal Enhancements. You only ever get the 4 that your detachment gives you.

- Relics had a lot more options. They could, for example, give a model a unique gun, a unique sword, a pseudo-jetpack, or other such (which was useful for characters that otherwise have very limited wargear options). Enhancements, by contrast, seem far more limited in their effects.

 vipoid wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I don't care too much for relics (they feel about the same as enhancements, IMO),

To my mind, the differences are:

- Relics were more numerous. Even the less-generous codices generally gave you twice as many as you get Enhancements.

- Relics were largely universal (in that most of your stock was available regardless of what subfaction you were using), whereas there are no universal Enhancements. You only ever get the 4 that your detachment gives you.

- Relics had a lot more options. They could, for example, give a model a unique gun, a unique sword, a pseudo-jetpack, or other such (which was useful for characters that otherwise have very limited wargear options). Enhancements, by contrast, seem far more limited in their effects.

That just loops back to 10th not having much customization in general.

I'd rather have a robust set of wargear options for Characters and others than one-per-army-and-character Relics.

While I miss the flavor, I don’t miss some of the interactions you could get with WL traits, relics, and faction bonuses/strats.

10th cut that stuff so we don’t have broken layers of unstopable death combos.

Would be nice if there was a middle ground, but I understand why we have a fixed number of enhancements tied to restricted detachments. Less potental for abuse.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I don't care too much for relics (they feel about the same as enhancements, IMO),

To my mind, the differences are:

- Relics were more numerous. Even the less-generous codices generally gave you twice as many as you get Enhancements.

- Relics were largely universal (in that most of your stock was available regardless of what subfaction you were using), whereas there are no universal Enhancements. You only ever get the 4 that your detachment gives you.

- Relics had a lot more options. They could, for example, give a model a unique gun, a unique sword, a pseudo-jetpack, or other such (which was useful for characters that otherwise have very limited wargear options). Enhancements, by contrast, seem far more limited in their effects.

That just loops back to 10th not having much customization in general.

I'd rather have a robust set of wargear options for Characters and others than one-per-army-and-character Relics.

I don't disagree.

However, Relics were also one of the only areas of the game where NMNR didn't apply. So it seems a more plausible thing to hope for under GW's warped mindset.

 Nevelon wrote:
10th cut that stuff so we don’t have broken layers of unstopable death combos.

It also removed all other customisation from my armies.

But I guess it's harder for people to cut themselves on flavourless slop.

 Nevelon wrote:

 RaptorusRex wrote:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
If you look at the Kasrkin, please explain to me why you would take the chainsword over the power sword...

In this new "take everything" system works on some things, like storm bolters on rhinos, it loses a lot of the fine tuning of armies that a lot of hobbyists enjoy.

More attacks?

(Hypothetical example, as I’m not familiar with the stats on Kasrkin)

There are a number of options in the game that have a niche, but it’s so tiny to be negligible. Like a chainsword might be the better choice against T3 targets with no armor save, but the power sword is better against literally everything else. In those cases, it’s a trap choice unless you are tailoring against a very specific threat.

It would be one thing if it was a broad niche. Like being good at killing MEQ, but other options were better against other targets.

But for a lot of things the +1 A is not worth the loss in to hit, S AP or whatever the other options grant.

You can tweak it further, innate reroll 1s to wound, or sustained, or lethals, or whatever you need to balance it against its peers. Let's not pretend GW ever got the points balance right either. There's decades of trap choices, duds and obvious winners even with granular gear.

Probably the front 45 degree model facing from 2nd edition.

Dudeface wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:

 RaptorusRex wrote:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
If you look at the Kasrkin, please explain to me why you would take the chainsword over the power sword...

In this new "take everything" system works on some things, like storm bolters on rhinos, it loses a lot of the fine tuning of armies that a lot of hobbyists enjoy.

More attacks?

(Hypothetical example, as I’m not familiar with the stats on Kasrkin)

There are a number of options in the game that have a niche, but it’s so tiny to be negligible. Like a chainsword might be the better choice against T3 targets with no armor save, but the power sword is better against literally everything else. In those cases, it’s a trap choice unless you are tailoring against a very specific threat.

It would be one thing if it was a broad niche. Like being good at killing MEQ, but other options were better against other targets.

But for a lot of things the +1 A is not worth the loss in to hit, S AP or whatever the other options grant.

You can tweak it further, innate reroll 1s to wound, or sustained, or lethals, or whatever you need to balance it against its peers. Let's not pretend GW ever got the points balance right either. There's decades of trap choices, duds and obvious winners even with granular gear.

right? Like in the chainsword/power sword example, the only time you’d really take a chainsword is if you literally couldn’t afford the powersword…but how often was that 5pts ever the killer anyway?

I think most Sergeant wargear wasn’t a big deal. It should cost more than nothing, but the difference between a laspistol and bolt pistol is about as close to nothing as you can get.

But taking a Heavy weapon in your Tactical or Infantry squads… THAT should cost points, and be a decision.

Eh I've built lists that were 5pts over 2K. So yes sometimes you really do have only a few points worth of difference.

Now granted in most/many cases being 5pts over makes basically no difference at 2K points in a game and in a non-tournament setting many opponents might even let it slide.


That said its still missing the fundamental point. It's not about if specific options were or were not worth their points. The fact was you had the choice as a player to make those choices.
With weapons and with upgrades the performance was reflected in the variation in points.

With the current system GW got rid of the points, but kept many of the upgrades. The result is that we have a daft situation where its not a case of "how often are 5pst the killer" but a case of "well might as well take the better/all options because why not, it costs the same to field".

I get that GW is trying to make the game more accessible and trying to keep the customising that players are used too (and lets face it its actually part of what makes 40K unique in the fantasy setting - most other model ranges are 1 maybe 2 weapon options on some units and that's it. You might get an army wide upgrade or a general upgrade; but by and large units have 1 fixed set of stats)

 vipoid wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I don't care too much for relics (they feel about the same as enhancements, IMO),

To my mind, the differences are:

- Relics were more numerous. Even the less-generous codices generally gave you twice as many as you get Enhancements.

- Relics were largely universal (in that most of your stock was available regardless of what subfaction you were using), whereas there are no universal Enhancements. You only ever get the 4 that your detachment gives you.

- Relics had a lot more options. They could, for example, give a model a unique gun, a unique sword, a pseudo-jetpack, or other such (which was useful for characters that otherwise have very limited wargear options). Enhancements, by contrast, seem far more limited in their effects.

So you would want faction relics and detachment WL traits (assuming relics and WL traits came back)? This would allow you to have a relic version of several types of weapons, like a pistol that is actually useful because a generic ranged weapon buff wouldn't be balanced for both pistols and combi-weapons.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I'd rather have a robust set of wargear options for Characters and others than one-per-army-and-character Relics.

Would that include master-crafted pistols?