How Do You Want Named Characters Handled?

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.

**Tyel**

catbarf wrote:
The point is that, in response to Tyel, win percentages are not the only actionable data we have access to. Things are different now than twenty years ago, it's never been easier to figure out not only what factions are winning, but what units they're taking and what options on those units.

But what does balance in this situation look like?
Do we want successful lists to have 50/50 splits over captains with chainswords and powerfists?

I mean look at say an Archon (I realise this is the DE Mafia but that's life). To be fair, not even sure competitive lists bother with an Archon right now - but thats perhaps another issue.

The Master Crafted Power Weapon is the anti-MEQ choice, due to the extra attack and pip of S - and D2 is good enough.
We could say the Agonzier is the anti-GEQ - but instead of GEQ, think Aspect Warriors, Incubi, other elite 1 wound infantry.
But I pretty much always take a Husk Blade because the 3 damage gives you scope to "get lucky" into 3 wound and up models.

Maybe thats the wrong way to think about it - but if my Archon pops off and kills two Terminators that's better than expected - and might make a difference versus overkilling a unit I'd handle anyway. Admittedly this is because he's probably running with 5 incubi who would do a good job of blending those units.

How far would points move this? An Archon base is 80 points. How low are we going such that the Agonizer is a good option if I'm not list tailoring into those specific armies? 70? 60? 50? At some point he could have no weapon at all and just be a suicidal guy with a Shadowfield who jumps on objectives.

**Hellebore**

LunarSol wrote:
The problem with the kind of balance people are talking about is that the more things you tie to a single balancing factor (ie points) the more changing one element of it impacts all of the others. The idea that if you just micromanage points endlessly sounds good. I heavily subscribed to the idea for years, but the reality is that it doesn't actually work because you're never just working on one thing.

Lets take the Captain that is in every list. Upping the points on the options taken likely doesn't increase the number of combinations seen on the table. In most cases, that simply removes that as an option because the additional points have to come out of something and its likely going to be the Captain. That's always been the issue with points granularity. A list is a puzzle, and making your pieces more uniquely shaped just limits the ways they can go together.

Ultimately points are more of an economy that determines balance as much as any other stat. It's not without value, but in general having components differentiated more by function than cost creates more meaningful options than Sword vs Sword+1.

I don't disagree and think the options system they've built is pretty good.

But not using points at all is also not the right answer and GW knows this or they wouldn't have slight unit variants as separately pointed datasheets rather than making them free options.

Paying an opportunity cost can be useful. ie two captains have different special rules. if you only had one captain unit with one default special rule and a 10pt upgrade cost to change it the other rule, it doesn't mean it's 10pts better than the other rule.

It just means you have to pay 10pts to get access to it in the first place or you can't get the rule at all.

Just as differentiated function is a useful tool for balance, points can be more than simply a 'better costs more' blunt instrument.

**Breton**

LunarSol wrote:
The problem with the kind of balance people are talking about is that the more things you tie to a single balancing factor (ie points) the more changing one element of it impacts all of the others. The idea that if you just micromanage points endlessly sounds good. I heavily subscribed to the idea for years, but the reality is that it doesn't actually work because you're never just working on one thing.

Lets take the Captain that is in every list. Upping the points on the options taken likely doesn't increase the number of combinations seen on the table. In most cases, that simply removes that as an option because the additional points have to come out of something and its likely going to be the Captain. That's always been the issue with points granularity. A list is a puzzle, and making your pieces more uniquely shaped just limits the ways they can go together.

Ultimately points are more of an economy that determines balance as much as any other stat. It's not without value, but in general having components differentiated more by function than cost creates more meaningful options than Sword vs Sword+1.

There's another bigger but more insidious problem - the insinuation that a power fist (and so on) inherently deserves to be more points than a chainsword (and so on) based on the assumption that a power fist is always universally better than the chainsword. Somebody shows up in all infantry guard and that powerfist is a hindrance not an advantage. Someone shows up with a full on tank company and the chainsword is the liability. You show up with 3 Godhammer Land Raiders and 3 Ballistus Dreads and you're going to be using a lot of Superfrags and captains with chainswords because the powerfist is likely to be redundant and you need more ginsu.

**JNAProductions**

Breton wrote:
LunarSol wrote:
The problem with the kind of balance people are talking about is that the more things you tie to a single balancing factor (ie points) the more changing one element of it impacts all of the others. The idea that if you just micromanage points endlessly sounds good. I heavily subscribed to the idea for years, but the reality is that it doesn't actually work because you're never just working on one thing.

Lets take the Captain that is in every list. Upping the points on the options taken likely doesn't increase the number of combinations seen on the table. In most cases, that simply removes that as an option because the additional points have to come out of something and its likely going to be the Captain. That's always been the issue with points granularity. A list is a puzzle, and making your pieces more uniquely shaped just limits the ways they can go together.

Ultimately points are more of an economy that determines balance as much as any other stat. It's not without value, but in general having components differentiated more by function than cost creates more meaningful options than Sword vs Sword+1.

There's another bigger but more insidious problem - the insinuation that a power fist (and so on) inherently deserves to be more points than a chainsword (and so on) based on the assumption that a power fist is always universally better than the chainsword. Somebody shows up in all infantry guard and that powerfist is a hindrance not an advantage. Someone shows up with a full on tank company and the chainsword is the liability. You show up with 3 Godhammer Land Raiders and 3 Ballistus Dreads and you're going to be using a lot of Superfrags and captains with chainswords because the powerfist is likely to be redundant and you need more ginsu.

Fun fact-the current generic captain datasheet has no chainsword option.
Bonus fun fact-the Power Fist does better into GEQ and MEQ than the Power Weapon.
Fun three fact-if they had a 7 attack, WS2+ S4 AP-1 D2 Chainsword melee option, it’d be the worst option to take against GEQ.

**catbarf**

LunarSol wrote:
It's not without value, but in general having components differentiated more by function than cost creates more meaningful options than Sword vs Sword+1.

It doesn't have to be one or the other. I tend to prefer interesting sidegrades over stuff like 1pt bolt pistols. But having that points granularity available, so you can add a 5pt upcharge to the option that is different but slightly more attractive on the whole, is still a useful tool to have. To go back to a prior example, it's a lot easier to use cost differences to balance out Multi-Melta vs Heavy Flamer vs Heavy Bolter than to try to make all three equally viable on stats alone.

I don't mind that I can't slap a dozen fiddly little 1-2pt upgrades on my Tyranid Warriors anymore. I do mind that all the different melee weapons have been boiled down to a single 'Tyranid Warrior claws and talons' profile, the Deathspitter is flat-out superior to the Devourer, and two-thirds of my Warriors have heavy weapons because there's no reason not to. This is stupid.

Tyel wrote:
But what does balance in this situation look like?

Same thing it does in any other situation: All armies showing up in play with rough parity in winrates, enough variety within those armies that there are no units that never appear on the table, and all options are worth taking in some context. That's all it has to be.

There's this idea that 'balance' requires some kind of mathematical outcome where the points must objectively reflect the overall utility of a unit or option- something too contextual to quantify in any meaningful sense. Balance is when you have a variety of options that feel fun and give you a reasonable shot against your like-minded buddy. Points are an abstract opportunity cost used to constrain your forcebuilding. It's all abstract and that's fine.

**Breton**

JNAProductions wrote:
Breton wrote:
LunarSol wrote:
The problem with the kind of balance people are talking about is that the more things you tie to a single balancing factor (ie points) the more changing one element of it impacts all of the others. The idea that if you just micromanage points endlessly sounds good. I heavily subscribed to the idea for years, but the reality is that it doesn't actually work because you're never just working on one thing.

Lets take the Captain that is in every list. Upping the points on the options taken likely doesn't increase the number of combinations seen on the table. In most cases, that simply removes that as an option because the additional points have to come out of something and its likely going to be the Captain. That's always been the issue with points granularity. A list is a puzzle, and making your pieces more uniquely shaped just limits the ways they can go together.

Ultimately points are more of an economy that determines balance as much as any other stat. It's not without value, but in general having components differentiated more by function than cost creates more meaningful options than Sword vs Sword+1.

There's another bigger but more insidious problem - the insinuation that a power fist (and so on) inherently deserves to be more points than a chainsword (and so on) based on the assumption that a power fist is always universally better than the chainsword. Somebody shows up in all infantry guard and that powerfist is a hindrance not an advantage. Someone shows up with a full on tank company and the chainsword is the liability. You show up with 3 Godhammer Land Raiders and 3 Ballistus Dreads and you're going to be using a lot of Superfrags and captains with chainswords because the powerfist is likely to be redundant and you need more ginsu.
Fun fact-the current generic captain datasheet has no chainsword option.
Bonus fun fact-the Power Fist does better into GEQ and MEQ than the Power Weapon.
Fun three fact-if they had a 7 attack, WS2+ S4 AP-1 D2 Chainsword melee option, it’d be the worst option to take against GEQ.

Even more fun fact: The guy being intentionally obtuse and overly literal didn't mention the power weapon was master crafted which is odd for someone being so literal despite the presence of "and so on" for both examples. Especially as you gloss over one of the major changes. Way back when a Captain had X number of attacks no matter what he was swinging. Now that each weapon type has X, Y, or Z number of attacks based on their "class" its not Apples and Bigger Apples anymore.

For someone who complains a lot about not having any content here worthwhile, you sure create a lot of content that isn't worthwhile.

**JNAProductions**

A Power Fist is not 100% universally better than a Chainsword.
But it's both (1) generally better, across most units both in total and that'd you'd expect to see, and (2) offers something you don't generally have as much of-good Strength, AP, and Damage.

A Marine list won't generally struggle to put out S4 firepower or melee attacks.

And I didn't mention the Power Weapon was Mastercrafted. I did, however, run the math using the actual profile, which used a D2 Power Sword with 6 attacks.

The numbers are as follows:
A Theoretical Chainsword (A7 WS2+ S4 AP-1 D2) inflicts 3.24 failed saves against GEQ and 1.46 against MEQ.
A MC Power Weapon inflicts 3.33 against GEQ and 2.22 against MEQ.
A Powerfist inflicts 3.47 against GEQ and 2.31 against MEQ.

**Dudeface**

Hellebore wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Hellebore wrote:

That's not the argument being made. It has been stated that GW CAN'T balance wargear as evidenced by the previous 40 years.

Snip

I understand what you're saying, but whilst GW hypothetically could balance the options, they have repeatedly shown they can't. There's a slew of options this edition that people don't use because they're not equivalent in the current wargear system. Adding points to them, which GW have admitted they maybe should in places, won't magically fix the issue as then they're still having to spin more plates than they are now.

Regards the views on the playerbase and "solving the game", your entire posit requires GW to create a rules change that impacts the balance of a faction to enable players to "rediscover" a new solution.

I think the best example currently is a battlesisters squad. GW are on record that their options aren't balanced now and mechanics need changing to make it so. Multimeltas win out most of the time, heavy flamers have a place in some builds, heavy bolters atm need not exist for most. To make the heavy bolter worth it, all 3 need different points and need rebalanching every pass, or you need to rewrite the weapon profiles, or invent a new detachment. None are an easy step and GW has done none of the 3 even acknowledging this discrepancy.

I would love to be wrong going forwards, but I can't see it.

Your argument is requiring that all options in the current game must be balanced to prove that wargear can be balanced. A single unit with unbalanced options in the game is not proof. In fact it's the opposite, because it shows that the overwhelming majority of options the game has across all factions in toto can and are balanced against each other.

One Sisters squad is no more proof than the 3.5 chaos codex is proof that GW can't balance armies. If the majority of modern 40k options are imbalanced like the sisters squad, then that also speaks to GW's inability to balance their armies in general. They're tied together. Their balance updates don't have a wargear and an army section, they balance them all at once because its all one army.

If GW are getting it more right than wrong in their datasheet options and choices, then they are already proving they can balance internal unit options. And they're doing this with one arm tied behind their back by not providing point costs for upgrades as another balance lever. Which is something they've added back in for the crucible champions. The hamfisty way they currently do it in the game is multiple datasheets, which has its own issues like the proliferation of snowflake special rules for no reason other than its a different unit and the aforementioned over abundance of certain units to model the different options without having them on the same datasheet.

If we are arguing that GW can't balance its internal unit options now, then we're saying that their whole balance apparatus isn't working and their army lists aren't balancing.

This comes back to a hobby horse of mine which is splitting tournament play out of standard play by creating tournament lists and seasons of lists. If tournament players are already cherry picking for optimisation, then they are the tail wagging the dog for the rest of the army that will never be chosen. GW should just create a set of limited unit tournament lists for each faction that have been playtested to death and have people pick one to use. Every season they release different ones.

What this does is it decouples tournament victories from unit quality and stops the public getting caught in the tournament rat race because they can't meaningfully measure the whole army roster against a tournament list when the tournament list is curated. It says that the tournament environment is an artificial one aimed at pure competition and the normal game has more freedom. If tournament players can't choose units that normal players are using, then there's no FOMO or comparing going on.

For fun GW could even create suboptimal tournament lists for everyone and have a battle of the dregs tournament where you have to win with poor composition. Anything to decouple the public discourse from tournament optimisation.

Honestly I'm confused about your overall stance. I gave a specific example that GW noted was a problem, not that it was a stand out in a sea of well balanced units and never stated this was the case. You seem to suggest they're doing a good job with their current system, yet stating they need to move back to ponted wargear. You ask for granularity whilst preaching the balance it provides is unnecessary.

I'll bow out as I aren't sure which half of your arguments I'm meant to be relating with.

**ccs**

Breton wrote:
LunarSol wrote:
The problem with the kind of balance people are talking about is that the more things you tie to a single balancing factor (ie points) the more changing one element of it impacts all of the others. The idea that if you just micromanage points endlessly sounds good. I heavily subscribed to the idea for years, but the reality is that it doesn't actually work because you're never just working on one thing.

Lets take the Captain that is in every list. Upping the points on the options taken likely doesn't increase the number of combinations seen on the table. In most cases, that simply removes that as an option because the additional points have to come out of something and its likely going to be the Captain. That's always been the issue with points granularity. A list is a puzzle, and making your pieces more uniquely shaped just limits the ways they can go together.

Ultimately points are more of an economy that determines balance as much as any other stat. It's not without value, but in general having components differentiated more by function than cost creates more meaningful options than Sword vs Sword+1.

There's another bigger but more insidious problem - the insinuation that a power fist (and so on) inherently deserves to be more points than a chainsword (and so on) based on the assumption that a power fist is always universally better than the chainsword. Somebody shows up in all infantry guard and that powerfist is a hindrance not an advantage. Someone shows up with a full on tank company and the chainsword is the liability. You show up with 3 Godhammer Land Raiders and 3 Ballistus Dreads and you're going to be using a lot of Superfrags and captains with chainswords because the powerfist is likely to be redundant and you need more ginsu.

Speaking as a guy currently running an all Captain + Landraider list in an Escalation League, fighting all manner of lists, & doing nicely?
No.
I'm not running ANY chainswords.
The only reason 2 of my jump Captains have power weapons (1 sword & 1 axe) vs everyone with a powerfist is that I simply like how they look.
(I used Dantes body/axe & the one 30k BA jump guy with 2h sword).
I dont need the extra attacks the pws/chainswords come with. I would rather have the extra str from the fists - but like I said, the models used in my conversions simply looked cooler with thier origin weapons.

**Tyel**

catbarf wrote:
Same thing it does in any other situation: All armies showing up in play with rough parity in winrates, enough variety within those armies that there are no units that never appear on the table, and all options are worth taking in some context. That's all it has to be.

There's this idea that 'balance' requires some kind of mathematical outcome where the points must objectively reflect the overall utility of a unit or option- something too contextual to quantify in any meaningful sense. Balance is when you have a variety of options that feel fun and give you a reasonable shot against your like-minded buddy. Points are an abstract opportunity cost used to constrain your forcebuilding. It's all abstract and that's fine.

Well I think in this case the most sensible thing is to just remove the Chainsword option. There just isn't a scenario where you'd want your character to have a few more S4 AP- 1 damage attacks.

Not only because of this comparison between options - i.e. the expected output of chainsword vs the powersword vs the powerfist. But across the whole range of listbuilding options. S4 AP-1 D1 attacks are plentiful - while S8 3 damage attacks are less common.

You'd end up with "Captain Combat Weapons" and maybe "Heavy Captain Combat Weapons". Specialisation in assault is generally bad due to the more limited scope to decide what you are hitting. A good assault unit needs to be able to blend everything (with weight class really determined by points).

Which you've said above you don't like with your Tyranid Warrior weapons. But its a better solution than trying to make all the above equally attractive on a meta-neutral basis.

**LunarSol**

catbarf wrote:
LunarSol wrote:
It's not without value, but in general having components differentiated more by function than cost creates more meaningful options than Sword vs Sword+1.

It doesn't have to be one or the other. I tend to prefer interesting sidegrades over stuff like 1pt bolt pistols. But having that points granularity available, so you can add a 5pt upcharge to the option that is different but slightly more attractive on the whole, is still a useful tool to have. To go back to a prior example, it's a lot easier to use cost differences to balance out Multi-Melta vs Heavy Flamer vs Heavy Bolter than to try to make all three equally viable on stats alone.

I don't mind that I can't slap a dozen fiddly little 1-2pt upgrades on my Tyranid Warriors anymore. I do mind that all the different melee weapons have been boiled down to a single 'Tyranid Warrior claws and talons' profile, the Deathspitter is flat-out superior to the Devourer, and two-thirds of my Warriors have heavy weapons because there's no reason not to. This is stupid.

Actually, this is a good distinction. It's not that I don't think points are valuable, I just think they work better when used as a framework instead of a primary balancing lever. What I mean by that is if you want to have a premium option in your design that's fine, but when you discover that one option is better, fixing it with points is often the most disruptive solution. In a lot of ways, small tweaks to points are the hardest change to adapt to because you've probably already stripped out any excesses from the list and anything cut further probably requires rethinking the whole thing.

Ultimately its an issue with the way points are connected to the whole game. You can balance a set of options for the character, but those options are also competing with every choice the player has for their army and those choices are ultimately competing with every army across the game. It's very easy to get hung up on trying to make minor choices viable when at the scale of the game they have little actual impact. When you try to fix those choices with points, you're pulling on everything in a way that forces change, but almost never actually creates additional options.

Honestly, as is, I think most of the choices in the game are pretty viable. People want to feel like there is a right choice so they feel like they made the right choice, but rarely have I played a game in 10th where my character loadout really made the difference in whether I won or lost. I think a lot of the bad options are bad because the job they do isn't really a job that needs to be done or in some cases are a result of systems not working as intended that need a more significant rework. I'd just rather see those options made more compelling than see them taken as a way to get another unit on the table at a discount.

**Breton**

JNAProductions wrote:
A Power Fist is not 100% universally better than a Chainsword.
But it's both (1) generally better, across most units both in total and that'd you'd expect to see, and (2) offers something you don't generally have as much of-good Strength, AP, and Damage.

A Marine list won't generally struggle to put out S4 firepower or melee attacks.

And I didn't mention the Power Weapon was Mastercrafted. I did, however, run the math using the actual profile, which used a D2 Power Sword with 6 attacks.

The numbers are as follows:
A Theoretical Chainsword (A7 WS2+ S4 AP-1 D2) inflicts 3.24 failed saves against GEQ and 1.46 against MEQ.
A MC Power Weapon inflicts 3.33 against GEQ and 2.22 against MEQ.
A Powerfist inflicts 3.47 against GEQ and 2.31 against MEQ.

Generally won't? How many marine lists will generally have 3 Godhammer Land Raiders and 3 Ballistus Dreads? Was part of my point the ability to make different lists get to the same results in different ways?

Is your theoretical chainsword worse than BOTH of the actual Mastercrafted Chainswords out there? (there's one for a Tier 2 or lower DIY Hero in the Crucible, and there's one on Titus)
Yet you used your theoretical one that is worse than both.
To make your dishonest point that they currently aren't balanced correctly means they haven't changed the space (and thus the idea itself that Powerfists deserve to be worth more than chainswords) by moving the Attacks stat to the weapon based on the weapon type/tier and the bearer type/tier. You even made it obvious you understood this by including the number of Attacks as part of the weapon statline, then immediately returned to your dishonest "contributions" to the conversation by ignoring the "and so on" that makes my statement about the generic theory being used now, and trying to refute it with the results of their first attempt. Hell I didn't even say "Captain" until the very end as part of examples not part of the principle:

the insinuation that a power fist (and so on) inherently deserves to be more points than a chainsword (and so on) based on the assumption that a power fist is always universally better than the chainsword.

I can draw a straight line from the Gravis Styles rules to putting Attacks on the (melee) weapons based on what weapon it is and who is carrying it that makes a pretty good argument for that being the source of this design change. I can even draw a line between 3A Heavy Bolters and 1A Lascannons showing they've already been doing this with shooting weapons and have now moved on to doing the fight weapons the same way. A Heavy Bolter does 1.39 Damage to GEQ. A Lascannon has 1 SHOT total. Its the same design concept, only its been around a lot longer. So again, the guy who whines about the quality of the discourse around here - Made up a subpar theoretical weapon (even though there are two REAL weapons that would have come close to qualifying that were BOTH better than the fake one they created to further massage the data) to argue about an "end result" not the concept as if that "end result" refutes the concept. You want to do that dishonest math again on Fleshborer Hives vs Rupture Cannons? Maybe that will give you back the level of discourse you wanted. Or do you want to concede the changes mean GW IS trying to create equivalent-in-their-value niches in melee weapons that already exist in shooting weapons but haven't gotten it correct yet after less than one edition worth of work? Hey, maybe if you "argue" with more honesty the quality of the discourse around here WOULD improve?

**JNAProductions**

Breton, if you think I made an error, please point it out and, if possible, explain a correction.
Don’t automatically assume I’m all-knowing and therefore anything that’s not 100% accurate is a lie or attack. It’s not. I’m human. I’m fallible.

**Dudeface**

JNAProductions wrote:
Breton, if you think I made an error, please point it out and, if possible, explain a correction.
Don’t automatically assume I’m all-knowing and therefore anything that’s not 100% accurate is a lie or attack. It’s not. I’m human. I’m fallible.

Sounds like something an abominable intelligence would say

**Breton**

Tyel wrote:
catbarf wrote:
Same thing it does in any other situation: All armies showing up in play with rough parity in winrates, enough variety within those armies that there are no units that never appear on the table, and all options are worth taking in some context. That's all it has to be.

There's this idea that 'balance' requires some kind of mathematical outcome where the points must objectively reflect the overall utility of a unit or option- something too contextual to quantify in any meaningful sense. Balance is when you have a variety of options that feel fun and give you a reasonable shot against your like-minded buddy. Points are an abstract opportunity cost used to constrain your forcebuilding. It's all abstract and that's fine.

Well I think in this case the most sensible thing is to just remove the Chainsword option. There just isn't a scenario where you'd want your character to have a few more S4 AP- 1 damage attacks.

Not only because of this comparison between options - i.e. the expected output of chainsword vs the powersword vs the powerfist. But across the whole range of listbuilding options. S4 AP-1 D1 attacks are plentiful - while S8 3 damage attacks are less common.

You'd end up with "Captain Combat Weapons" and maybe "Heavy Captain Combat Weapons". Specialisation in assault is generally bad due to the more limited scope to decide what you are hitting. A good assault unit needs to be able to blend everything (with weight class really determined by points).

Which you've said above you don't like with your Tyranid Warrior weapons. But its a better solution than trying to make all the above equally attractive on a meta-neutral basis.

We already have them. The power fist used by a Captain is not the same power fist used by a Sergeant. Fluff wise they are, but not rule wise. The Captain has a different stat line on his power fist than the Lieutenant/Ancient in Terminator Armor than the Assault Intercessor Sergeant and Terminators. Its still very much a work in progress - for example The Assault Intercessor Sergeant gets 4A with a Chainsword and 4A with a Power Weapon. Meanwhile the Devastator Sergeant gets 4A with a Chainsword and 3A with a power weapon. They haven't even caught all the copy/paste errors yet, let alone shaken out the affects of losing Charge Bonus attacks, and Two Weapon bonus attacks, or the changes to the SvT now-that-S-and-T-go-above-10 matrix. I would imagine at some point they'll get the A per Strentgth/Tier ratio better situated both vs other melee, and for melee vs shooting adjusted for opportunity. The Power Fist is probably too "fast" at 5A - until you compare it to a lascannon. At the same time, a power sword is probably too slow at 6A, and a Chainsword is way too slow at 7A With without goodies, even 8A with goodies is probably too slow depending on the goodies.

**insaniak**

Breton, seriously, stop accusing people who disagree with you of lying.

Sometimes, it's worth considering the possibility that people acting like they disagree with you are doing do because they actually disagree with you.

**Breton**

JNAProductions wrote:
Breton, if you think I made an error, please point it out and, if possible, explain a correction.
Don’t automatically assume I’m all-knowing and therefore anything that’s not 100% accurate is a lie or attack. It’s not. I’m human. I’m fallible.

I'm pretty I just did. And here you are pretending I didn't. Though I do appear to have confused you with Jidmah which wasn't very fair. Not all that far off but not fair either.

**JNAProductions**

You didn’t mention the crucible of champion’s or Titus’ profile, which would’ve been helpful.
You were also incredibly aggressive. I’m not lying-I made a mistake. Big difference.

Edit: MC Chainsword from Crucible is as I described, but also has SH1.
That makes it modestly best into GEQ, and still worse into MEQ.

Titus’ Chainsword is A8 WS2+ S5 AP-1 D2, with anti-infantry 2+ and SH1.
Considering he’s a special character and can’t be built generically, I don’t think his is a good example to follow. And ultimately, I think that that profile is pretty excessive just in general. If it lost anti-infantry, it’d be a lot more palatable.

**Breton**

Removed.

**JNAProductions**

I don’t think that the best choice is always make every option as good as each other and all the same points.
I think it’d be better to have different options be able to cost different amounts, based on general value. What another poster said above, that it should be designed with it in mind, is a good way to look at it.

So, to continue the captain example, I’d want the Chainsword and Power Weapon to be roughly equal. But the Powerfist would be generally better, while costing an extra 5-10 points or so.

**Breton**

JNAProductions wrote:
You didn’t mention the crucible of champion’s or Titus’ profile, which would’ve been helpful.
You were also incredibly aggressive. I’m not lying-I made a mistake. Big difference.

Edit: MC Chainsword from Crucible is as I described, but also has SH1.

So what you described was worse? And for a lower tier LEADER than a captain? So it was worse and also aimed for worse? But still would have allowed you to get closer through comparison and reverse engineering?
Edit to Add: I didn't mention Titus or the Crucible because I wasn't talking about their chainswords. Or anybody's chainswords. I was talking about the general idea of melee weapons. That it is no longer really a progression from bad Chainswords to good powerswords to best power fists. Which I have pointed out several times, and you still pretend otherwise.

That makes it modestly best into GEQ, and still worse into MEQ.

Who can take it again? A Captain, or a Sub-Captain-Tier? At this time was the point I was making that it was better, or that you created your own that wasn't even this good?

Titus’ Chainsword is A8 WS2+ S5 AP-1 D2, with anti-infantry 2+ and SH1.
Considering he’s a special character and can’t be built generically, I don’t think his is a good example to follow. And ultimately, I think that that profile is pretty excessive just in general. If it lost anti-infantry, it’d be a lot more palatable.

He is indeed a special character. A Captain Tier special character. With a chainsword. Which should have given you a better ballpark for reverse engineering.
A point I allluded to myself about 45 minutes ago. Except for the part about 8 of Chainsword tier A being excessive.

At the same time, a power sword is probably too slow at 6A, and a Chainsword is way too slow at 7A With without goodies, even 8A with goodies is probably too slow depending on the goodies.

**JNAProductions**

I would like my GUO to be better into MEQ than a Captain.
And Titus is better than a GUO with Bilesword into MEQ.

**Breton**

JNAProductions wrote:
I would like my GUO to be better into MEQ than a Captain.
And Titus is better than a GUO with Bilesword into MEQ.

Did you just change from "a captain" to "Captain Titus" And did you just do it one post after claiming Titus is a Special Character and literally said he isn't a good example?

Considering he’s a special character and can’t be built generically, I don’t think his is a good example to follow.

Edit to Add: My mistake, it was TWO posts later.

**JNAProductions**

Captain Titus is, in my opinion, too killy.
If he’s considered the baseline for what a Chainsword on a captain would look like, which is something you at least somewhat implied, then that would make Captains killer into the single most common profile than a GUO.
I don’t want that.

**Breton**

JNAProductions wrote:
Captain Titus is, in my opinion, too killy.
If he’s considered the baseline for what a Chainsword on a captain would look like, which is something you at least somewhat implied, then that would make Captains killer into the single most common profile than a GUO.
I don’t want that.

Do you think GUO's options shouldn't/wouldn't also be part of "And So on"? Why do you CONTINUE to argue as if I was talking about Only Chainswords and Only Powerfists? How many times have I explained your "mistake" only to have you CONTINUE to repeat it?

I'm not sure what you inferred, but I said 8A Chainswords on captains were probably too slow even with "goodies". As we have REPEATEDLY covered there's only one 8A Chainsword on a captain out there. And it only has the Anti-Infantry 2+ Goodie.

And did you just skip over the question? Did you or did you not just start your premise with the generic "captain" then move the premise to Captain Titus? And did you do it two posts after saying Captain Titus was a special character who shouldn't be used as an example?

Edit to correct VERY Unfortunate typo.

**Hellebore**

Dudeface wrote:

Honestly I'm confused about your overall stance. I gave a specific example that GW noted was a problem, not that it was a stand out in a sea of well balanced units and never stated this was the case. You seem to suggest they're doing a good job with their current system, yet stating they need to move back to ponted wargear. You ask for granularity whilst preaching the balance it provides is unnecessary.

I'll bow out as I aren't sure which half of your arguments I'm meant to be relating with.

That gw can't balance wargear so it shouldn't exist in the game. That's it..jidmah has.made this claim as a conventional wisdom that means we should never see wargear options in unit lists again because they just can't be balanced.

I have said that gw currently uses a balance system that they never applied when they had wargear in their lists. They have shown they can balance armies with it. And wargear is not a separate special part of the game that this wouldn't apply to.

You seemingly used sisters as evidence they they can't balance options and I was saying that unless that unit represents most of the options in 4ok - that options are just not balanced in 40k, it is not evidence.

My argument is:

Any example of gws poor wargear balance is tainted data because it also showed that at the time they failed to balance wargear they also failed to balance armies and core rules. And the common denominator was not having a balance system inside editions, so that all aspects of the game were redone for the next edition and thus starting from scratch.

Gws new internal balance system was instigated and is effective, but stripped out wargear

Gw can balance options using their current balance system, without points costs
Unpriced Options and separate data sheets are a poor implementation in terms of game design, not balance (there are multiple measures here beyond just balance - chess is balanced but it lacks other qualities). They force item designs to be artificially different to make them comparably useful, or add baseless rules to units

Points for wargear are an additional lever they aren't using in the normal game because of their current design choices, not for balance purposes

The crucible rules added points costs for upgrades back in so they are not averse to this

That there are individual units with unbalanced internal options is not evidence that gw can't balance options unless it's emblematic of the game, any more than one broken codex is emblematic of all codexs being broken.

**JNAProductions**

Giving you the benefit of the doubt here, Breton, because when I said “Captain Titus is too killy” that’s in general. Not just relative to a GUO.
The game is pretty dang lethal, and I think it’s too much.

**Breton**

JNAProductions wrote:
Giving you the benefit of the doubt here, Breton, because when I said “Captain Titus is too killy” that’s in general. Not just relative to a GUO.
The game is pretty dang lethal, and I think it’s too much.

Yeah, that's from when you ignored and avoided the question.

Your initial post is here:

I would like my GUO to be better into MEQ than a Captain.
And Titus is better than a GUO with Bilesword into MEQ.

Did you start your premise with a generic Captain?

Did you move the goalposts of your premise to Titus?

Are either of those questions in any way unclear?

Does changing your premise yet another time to "Titus is too killy" change the answer to either of those two questions?

**JNAProductions**

I started with a captain.
However, your statements indicate that you think a Captain’s Chainsword should be closer to Titus than the Crucible profile. So I then compared to Titus directly.

Thank you for phrasing your questions clearly-it’d help to do that more often.

**Breton**

JNAProductions wrote:
I started with a captain.
However, your statements indicate that you think a Captain’s Chainsword should be closer to Titus than the Crucible profile. So I then compared to Titus directly.

Thank you for phrasing your questions clearly-it’d help to do that more often.

I phrased them the same way every time.

You made the change in the same post.

Did I post a reply between you saying

I would like my GUO to be better into MEQ than a Captain.

and you saying

And Titus is better than a GUO with Bilesword into MEQ.

?

Did you do this even after posting this:

Considering he’s a special character and can’t be built generically, I don’t think his is a good example to follow.

Should he be used as an example or not?

ASSUMING you answer those questions:
Your initial premise was:

I would like my GUO to be better into MEQ than a Captain.

Can you explain how a model with 6 attacks that hit on 2's and wound on 2's PLUS 3 more attacks that hit on 2s and wound on 3's with 2+damage (and 2 is all that matters) at -2AP (vs MEQ) does worse than a model that only has 5 Attacks that hit on 2s and wound on 2s doing the 2 damage that matters in MEQ with a -2AP? 6 is more than 5. 6+3 is WAY more than 5. Right?