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.
2026/02/19 23:15:58
Subject: How Do You Want Named Characters Handled?
I did not say “Captains are killier than a GUO.” I said “I would like GUO to be killier than a captain.”
That is currently true. For most captains, at least-not Titus. But for being so ready to call others liars for honest mistakes, you should be more aware of precise wording.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2026/02/20 00:04:33
Subject: How Do You Want Named Characters Handled?
JNAProductions wrote: I did not say “Captains are killier than a GUO.” I said “I would like GUO to be killier than a captain.”
That is currently true. For most captains, at least-not Titus. But for being so ready to call others liars for honest mistakes, you should be more aware of precise wording.
You think anyone believes you weren't implying it? But sure. You totally meant GUO already have better damage output when you said you wanted GUO to outperform a generic captain into MEQ. Why else would you even mention it if they didn't have better damage output than a generic captain?
But aren't we back to you using Special Character Captain Titus as an example? And you DID say we shouldn't use Special Characters as an example? Because they can't be created by generic characters?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Hey, I know. Lets do the math.
Titus has 8 attacks that hit on 2's and wound on 2's. SH1, But only a -1AP for 2D 8 attacks. Hit on 2+ means 6.664 hits. Add 1.33 Hits for SH on a 6+ over 8A - 7.99 call it 8 Hits. Crit wound on a 2+ 6.64 Woundings. 3+-1 = half save for 3.32 D2 woundings.
GUO has 6 attacks that have different stats but roll (until AP/damage) exactly the same 2+hits, 2+ wounds. 5 Hits, 4.165 woundings. only a third save, so 2.79 D2 Damages
But wait, the GUO also has a Bile Blade and Nurgle's Rot. So that's three EXTRA ATTACKS at S6, -2, D2 vs the MEQ that are now T3.
Before we do the math, lets let everyone at home have a chance. Will 8 (SH1) Anti-Infantry2+ -1 D2 attacks outperform a total of 9 Attacks that wound on also all wound on 2's, have -2AP (instead of -1) and D2.
So if we do 3 more attacks. that's 2.49 hits. that's 2.08 woundings. Only a third save for another 1.39 D2 Woundings. Now lets see. 1.39 + 2.79 is how many? its 4.18.
I'm not sure how to tell you this, but the GUO outperforms Titus into MEQ too.
That is currently true. For most captains, at least-not Titus.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2026/02/20 00:46:50
My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings.
2026/02/20 02:01:53
Subject: Re:How Do You Want Named Characters Handled?
If it was impossible for GW's paid analysts to balance wargear with all their tournament data, how could it be simultaneously possible for random players to "netdeck" the same perfect wargear setup for every list they make? It doesn't make sense, GW can read Goonhammer or whatever just like the players can.
Furthermore there's a huge practical difference between a suboptimal choice that's 95% as good as the optimal choice and one that's 65% as good. In the former case you can easily take the suboptimal choice because you like it or think it looks cool, in the latter case doing that is crippling yourself and it gets much more frustrating. And this can be true even if all hardcore tournament lists still just pick the optimal choice regardless.
Anuvver fing - when they do sumfing, they try to make it look like somfink else to confuse everybody. When one of them wants to lord it over the uvvers, 'e says "I'm very speshul so'z you gotta worship me", or "I know summink wot you lot don't know, so yer better lissen good". Da funny fing is, arf of 'em believe it and da over arf don't, so 'e 'as to hit 'em all anyway or run fer it.
2026/02/20 02:06:20
Subject: Re:How Do You Want Named Characters Handled?
Orkeosaurus wrote: If it was impossible for GW's paid analysts to balance wargear with all their tournament data, how could it be simultaneously possible for random players to "netdeck" the same perfect wargear setup for every list they make? It doesn't make sense, GW can read Goonhammer or whatever just like the players can.
Furthermore there's a huge practical difference between a suboptimal choice that's 95% as good as the optimal choice and one that's 65% as good. In the former case you can easily take the suboptimal choice because you like it or think it looks cool, in the latter case doing that is crippling yourself and it gets much more frustrating. And this can be true even if all hardcore tournament lists still just pick the optimal choice regardless.
Agreed.
This also reminds me of things like Hunter-Killer Missiles and sponsons. Stuff that, under the current system, are technically optional, but have no cost. Not even opportunity cost.
They should cost points.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2026/02/20 09:59:02
Subject: Re:How Do You Want Named Characters Handled?
Orkeosaurus wrote: If it was impossible for GW's paid analysts to balance wargear with all their tournament data, how could it be simultaneously possible for random players to "netdeck" the same perfect wargear setup for every list they make? It doesn't make sense, GW can read Goonhammer or whatever just like the players can.
Furthermore there's a huge practical difference between a suboptimal choice that's 95% as good as the optimal choice and one that's 65% as good. In the former case you can easily take the suboptimal choice because you like it or think it looks cool, in the latter case doing that is crippling yourself and it gets much more frustrating. And this can be true even if all hardcore tournament lists still just pick the optimal choice regardless.
Agreed.
This also reminds me of things like Hunter-Killer Missiles and sponsons. Stuff that, under the current system, are technically optional, but have no cost. Not even opportunity cost.
They should cost points.
Or not be optional.
2026/02/20 11:52:53
Subject: How Do You Want Named Characters Handled?
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.
And how many editions is this gonna take? Oh no, 11th updated how the Toughness stat works, back to square 1 and we might see profiles balanced against eachother in 13th edition. How hard is it going to be to remember? Compared to formulaic weapon profiles with points costs updated every 6 months. It should be done in 2 years at most. We aren't looking for no discrepency here, just like you are okay with some discrepancy in terms of efficiency, so are we and if a weapon is a bit overcosted or undercosted that is fine as long as nobody has to rip apart their minis for effieciency's sake, if done it should be for army cohesiveness sake (I need more anti-vehicle or anti-infantry, not this weapon option is clearly a troll pick).
Making suicide vests a common option for Space Wolves or making lightning strikes common for Necrons is telling the wrong story. Rules tell stories, when you say that having a suicide vest or summoning lightning strikes is unique you are also telling a story that this is not how the army normally functions and by giving them a name you tell it to the opponent as well. If you make too many rules that tell the wrong sort of story you turn Necrons into speedy glass cannons and Space Wolves into a gunline army.
2026/02/21 01:47:29
Subject: How Do You Want Named Characters Handled?
Based on past experience with them when they do this sort of thing? 3 Editions. The first edition with the change will be pretty bad. At best half done with multiple bandaids. Remember when they got rid of Charge bonuses, and two weapon bonuses and on and on? Then added 1A for using an Astartes Chainsword and a few combat knives etc that was just Chainswords with a different name? Only even that wasn't enough and Space Marine only? So they added Hateful Assault and so on? Then the next edition they cleaned a lot of that up with better than a bandaid?
Oh no, 11th updated how the Toughness stat works, back to square 1 and we might see profiles balanced against eachother in 13th edition.
I actually expect to see more work done on SvT to fix issues with Armies like Sisters, and ("man"-portable) melee. Not enough melee tank killers this side of Redemptor Fists and the like.
My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings.
2026/02/21 09:32:05
Subject: Re:How Do You Want Named Characters Handled?
Orkeosaurus wrote: If it was impossible for GW's paid analysts to balance wargear with all their tournament data, how could it be simultaneously possible for random players to "netdeck" the same perfect wargear setup for every list they make? It doesn't make sense, GW can read Goonhammer or whatever just like the players can.
Furthermore there's a huge practical difference between a suboptimal choice that's 95% as good as the optimal choice and one that's 65% as good. In the former case you can easily take the suboptimal choice because you like it or think it looks cool, in the latter case doing that is crippling yourself and it gets much more frustrating. And this can be true even if all hardcore tournament lists still just pick the optimal choice regardless.
As someone who reads goonhammer regularly, "netdecking" does not exist anymore. Unless something is truly broken (which GW will hit next dataslate, army win rates be damned), archetypes usually revolve around a core strategy but still have 25-50% of the list tailored to the tastes and list of the person playing it.
People are picking mathematically sub-optimal choices to adapt to meta, trade utility for raw power or to be less susceptible to hard counters. Each unit has one or two roles it can fulfill and for each role the one or two optimal loadouts are usually calculated within a few weeks of codex release - just the were all the way back to 5th edition, by the way. From that point onward, war gear has always been a non-decisions, whether it cost points or not.
My observation is that 9th and 10th have turned 40k into a unit based game, no longer a model based game. GW is balancing units of 10 ork boyz against units of 5 intercessors. That is by magnitudes less complex than balancing ork boyz with big choppa nob, shootas and big shootas against ork boyz with klaw nob, choppas and rokkit against tactical marines with power sword sergeant and las/plas against tactical marines with chainsword sergeant and flamer/missile launcher as well as all other permutations of those two units.
Orkeosaurus wrote: If it was impossible for GW's paid analysts to balance wargear with all their tournament data, how could it be simultaneously possible for random players to "netdeck" the same perfect wargear setup for every list they make? It doesn't make sense, GW can read Goonhammer or whatever just like the players can.
Furthermore there's a huge practical difference between a suboptimal choice that's 95% as good as the optimal choice and one that's 65% as good. In the former case you can easily take the suboptimal choice because you like it or think it looks cool, in the latter case doing that is crippling yourself and it gets much more frustrating. And this can be true even if all hardcore tournament lists still just pick the optimal choice regardless.
Agreed.
This also reminds me of things like Hunter-Killer Missiles and sponsons. Stuff that, under the current system, are technically optional, but have no cost. Not even opportunity cost.
They should cost points.
Or not be optional.
In reality, the are not optional, but people who have "illegal" models from previous editions are still allowed to play their models in strict WYSIWYG environments because few people glued those worthless upgrades to their tanks.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2026/02/21 09:34:19
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
2026/02/22 10:24:33
Subject: How Do You Want Named Characters Handled?
That's my issue with the wargear being "not optional" functionally - I just think the aesthetic of tanks completely covered in missiles and smoke launchers and huge dozer blades is awful. So I don't really want to feel like I should have them on there to be WYSIWYG because I'd rather run a more barebones tank for the visuals and it feels bad to either be gameplay penalized or not have my models be clearly readable for my opponent.
Not a big issue in the grand scheme of things, but that's what points costs for those sorts of upgrades did in the past.
Orkeosaurus wrote: If it was impossible for GW's paid analysts to balance wargear with all their tournament data, how could it be simultaneously possible for random players to "netdeck" the same perfect wargear setup for every list they make? It doesn't make sense, GW can read Goonhammer or whatever just like the players can.
Furthermore there's a huge practical difference between a suboptimal choice that's 95% as good as the optimal choice and one that's 65% as good. In the former case you can easily take the suboptimal choice because you like it or think it looks cool, in the latter case doing that is crippling yourself and it gets much more frustrating. And this can be true even if all hardcore tournament lists still just pick the optimal choice regardless.
Agreed.
This also reminds me of things like Hunter-Killer Missiles and sponsons. Stuff that, under the current system, are technically optional, but have no cost. Not even opportunity cost.
They should cost points.
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
2026/02/22 11:57:45
Subject: How Do You Want Named Characters Handled?
Orkeosaurus wrote: If it was impossible for GW's paid analysts to balance wargear with all their tournament data, how could it be simultaneously possible for random players to "netdeck" the same perfect wargear setup for every list they make? It doesn't make sense, GW can read Goonhammer or whatever just like the players can.
Furthermore there's a huge practical difference between a suboptimal choice that's 95% as good as the optimal choice and one that's 65% as good. In the former case you can easily take the suboptimal choice because you like it or think it looks cool, in the latter case doing that is crippling yourself and it gets much more frustrating. And this can be true even if all hardcore tournament lists still just pick the optimal choice regardless.
Agreed.
This also reminds me of things like Hunter-Killer Missiles and sponsons. Stuff that, under the current system, are technically optional, but have no cost. Not even opportunity cost.
They should cost points.
Or not be optional.
...whatever happened to player agency?
I mean is a hunter killer missile being included in the base layout really any impact on player agency?
2026/02/22 13:11:13
Subject: Re:How Do You Want Named Characters Handled?
I'd like to see more Character Detachments like Vulkan He'stan's Forgefather's Seekers.
If you are going to include a Named Character, build a force around them.
BorderCountess wrote: Just because you're doing something right doesn't necessarily mean you know what you're doing...
"Vulkan: There will be no Rad or Phosphex in my legion. We shall fight wars humanely. Some things should be left in the dark age." "Ferrus: Oh cool, when are you going to stop burning people to death?" "Vulkan: I do not understand the question."
– A conversation between the X and XVIII Primarchs
2026/02/22 13:15:13
Subject: How Do You Want Named Characters Handled?
Siegfriedfr wrote: Named Characters should only be usable in Crusades / narrative.
In a competitive setting, the models for named character should have a generic datasheet which would be depowered compared to the named datasheet.
General Narrative, yes, but NOT Crusade. Crusade should be more for "your dudes". And frankly, the Crucible of Champions rules should pair well with Crusade.
She/Her
"There are no problems that cannot be solved with cannons." - Chief Engineer Boris Krauss of Nuln
LatheBiosas wrote:I have such a difficult time hitting my opponents... setting them on fire seems so much simpler.
Kid_Kyoto wrote:"Don't be a dick" and "This is a family wargame" are good rules of thumb.
Orkeosaurus wrote: If it was impossible for GW's paid analysts to balance wargear with all their tournament data, how could it be simultaneously possible for random players to "netdeck" the same perfect wargear setup for every list they make? It doesn't make sense, GW can read Goonhammer or whatever just like the players can.
Furthermore there's a huge practical difference between a suboptimal choice that's 95% as good as the optimal choice and one that's 65% as good. In the former case you can easily take the suboptimal choice because you like it or think it looks cool, in the latter case doing that is crippling yourself and it gets much more frustrating. And this can be true even if all hardcore tournament lists still just pick the optimal choice regardless.
Agreed.
This also reminds me of things like Hunter-Killer Missiles and sponsons. Stuff that, under the current system, are technically optional, but have no cost. Not even opportunity cost.
They should cost points.
Or not be optional.
...whatever happened to player agency?
I mean is a hunter killer missile being included in the base layout really any impact on player agency?
You're denying someone the choice to not take a HK, or to not take sponsons - by definition, that's reducing player agency by removing choices.
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
2026/02/22 14:13:33
Subject: Re:How Do You Want Named Characters Handled?
Orkeosaurus wrote: If it was impossible for GW's paid analysts to balance wargear with all their tournament data, how could it be simultaneously possible for random players to "netdeck" the same perfect wargear setup for every list they make? It doesn't make sense, GW can read Goonhammer or whatever just like the players can.
Furthermore there's a huge practical difference between a suboptimal choice that's 95% as good as the optimal choice and one that's 65% as good. In the former case you can easily take the suboptimal choice because you like it or think it looks cool, in the latter case doing that is crippling yourself and it gets much more frustrating. And this can be true even if all hardcore tournament lists still just pick the optimal choice regardless.
Agreed.
This also reminds me of things like Hunter-Killer Missiles and sponsons. Stuff that, under the current system, are technically optional, but have no cost. Not even opportunity cost.
They should cost points.
Or not be optional.
...whatever happened to player agency?
I mean is a hunter killer missile being included in the base layout really any impact on player agency?
You're denying someone the choice to not take a HK, or to not take sponsons - by definition, that's reducing player agency by removing choices.
Ok, but of all the hills to die on, that's not a good choice. I understand what you're trying to say, but hunter killers existed as a way to eat a handful of points. It was never really agency beyond "oh what shall I do with this last 15 points?" They're now basically free, you get an extra one shot weapon for free. The player still has the agency to not use it, not take it currently.
2026/02/22 16:53:08
Subject: Re:How Do You Want Named Characters Handled?
Orkeosaurus wrote: If it was impossible for GW's paid analysts to balance wargear with all their tournament data, how could it be simultaneously possible for random players to "netdeck" the same perfect wargear setup for every list they make? It doesn't make sense, GW can read Goonhammer or whatever just like the players can.
Furthermore there's a huge practical difference between a suboptimal choice that's 95% as good as the optimal choice and one that's 65% as good. In the former case you can easily take the suboptimal choice because you like it or think it looks cool, in the latter case doing that is crippling yourself and it gets much more frustrating. And this can be true even if all hardcore tournament lists still just pick the optimal choice regardless.
Agreed.
This also reminds me of things like Hunter-Killer Missiles and sponsons. Stuff that, under the current system, are technically optional, but have no cost. Not even opportunity cost.
They should cost points.
Or not be optional.
...whatever happened to player agency?
I mean is a hunter killer missile being included in the base layout really any impact on player agency?
You're denying someone the choice to not take a HK, or to not take sponsons - by definition, that's reducing player agency by removing choices.
Ok, but of all the hills to die on, that's not a good choice. I understand what you're trying to say, but hunter killers existed as a way to eat a handful of points. It was never really agency beyond "oh what shall I do with this last 15 points?" They're now basically free, you get an extra one shot weapon for free. The player still has the agency to not use it, not take it currently.
Oh, was THAT the intention behind HKs?
Just something to burn extra pts on?
I guess I've been looking at it wrong all these decades.
Ive always viewed it as:
1) an extra option for some AT punch. Particularly on things like Chimeras that traditionally dont do the whole AT thing.
Optional because you may/may not need it.
2) an option to better echo real world vehicles.
Ex: at least one model of a Russian BMP (what the Chimera is styled after) carries a 1 shot rocket.
Other versions dont/is optional
2026/02/22 17:31:21
Subject: Re:How Do You Want Named Characters Handled?
Orkeosaurus wrote: If it was impossible for GW's paid analysts to balance wargear with all their tournament data, how could it be simultaneously possible for random players to "netdeck" the same perfect wargear setup for every list they make? It doesn't make sense, GW can read Goonhammer or whatever just like the players can.
Furthermore there's a huge practical difference between a suboptimal choice that's 95% as good as the optimal choice and one that's 65% as good. In the former case you can easily take the suboptimal choice because you like it or think it looks cool, in the latter case doing that is crippling yourself and it gets much more frustrating. And this can be true even if all hardcore tournament lists still just pick the optimal choice regardless.
Agreed.
This also reminds me of things like Hunter-Killer Missiles and sponsons. Stuff that, under the current system, are technically optional, but have no cost. Not even opportunity cost.
They should cost points.
Or not be optional.
...whatever happened to player agency?
I mean is a hunter killer missile being included in the base layout really any impact on player agency?
You're denying someone the choice to not take a HK, or to not take sponsons - by definition, that's reducing player agency by removing choices.
Ok, but of all the hills to die on, that's not a good choice. I understand what you're trying to say, but hunter killers existed as a way to eat a handful of points. It was never really agency beyond "oh what shall I do with this last 15 points?" They're now basically free, you get an extra one shot weapon for free. The player still has the agency to not use it, not take it currently.
Hard disagree about the HKs. Back in 8th edition I leaned into them heavily, and they were not an afterthought. I typically had 5-6 vehicles, often Rhinos and Razors, and I stuck HKs on all of them for the additional alpha strike capability. The most extreme version of this was a 10 Razorback list, all twin linked Lascannons plus HKs, which I think bonussed properly would one-shot a Castellan Knight back in it's hey day.
So like, buy a Land Speeder, or have an extra Devastator Squad for a turn. That's not a throwaway choice.
Orkeosaurus wrote: If it was impossible for GW's paid analysts to balance wargear with all their tournament data, how could it be simultaneously possible for random players to "netdeck" the same perfect wargear setup for every list they make? It doesn't make sense, GW can read Goonhammer or whatever just like the players can.
Furthermore there's a huge practical difference between a suboptimal choice that's 95% as good as the optimal choice and one that's 65% as good. In the former case you can easily take the suboptimal choice because you like it or think it looks cool, in the latter case doing that is crippling yourself and it gets much more frustrating. And this can be true even if all hardcore tournament lists still just pick the optimal choice regardless.
Agreed.
This also reminds me of things like Hunter-Killer Missiles and sponsons. Stuff that, under the current system, are technically optional, but have no cost. Not even opportunity cost.
They should cost points.
Or not be optional.
...whatever happened to player agency?
I mean is a hunter killer missile being included in the base layout really any impact on player agency?
You're denying someone the choice to not take a HK, or to not take sponsons - by definition, that's reducing player agency by removing choices.
Ok, but of all the hills to die on, that's not a good choice. I understand what you're trying to say, but hunter killers existed as a way to eat a handful of points. It was never really agency beyond "oh what shall I do with this last 15 points?" They're now basically free, you get an extra one shot weapon for free. The player still has the agency to not use it, not take it currently.
Hard disagree about the HKs. Back in 8th edition I leaned into them heavily, and they were not an afterthought. I typically had 5-6 vehicles, often Rhinos and Razors, and I stuck HKs on all of them for the additional alpha strike capability. The most extreme version of this was a 10 Razorback list, all twin linked Lascannons plus HKs, which I think bonussed properly would one-shot a Castellan Knight back in it's hey day.
So like, buy a Land Speeder, or have an extra Devastator Squad for a turn. That's not a throwaway choice.
So by them being included in the base cost/loadout, you get that and the landspeeder/devastators. I'm still not seeing it as a loss of agency for the players if the vehicle simply.comes with it at no cost.
2026/08/20 06:10:54
Subject: Re:How Do You Want Named Characters Handled?
So by them being included in the base cost/loadout, you get that and the landspeeder/devastators. I'm still not seeing it as a loss of agency for the players if the vehicle simply.comes with it at no cost.
By including them for free, you've removed the option of NOT taking them, and buying another unit or wargear instead.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2026/02/22 19:11:18
So by them being included in the base cost/loadout, you get that and the landspeeder/devastators. I'm still not seeing it as a loss of agency for the players if the vehicle simply.comes with it at no cost.
By including them for free, you've removed the option of NOT taking them, and buying another unit or wargear instead.
Just to break this down, old school:
GW valued the HK missile a handful of points, you chose to either buy them or not, but if you didn't get some dude(s) elsewhere. That is a simple choice. Your army and it's agency/effectiveness is based on whether you want the HK, or some other unit/addition right?
Added side impact: WYSIWYG, you need to paint and add them on to use them in theory.
New school of thought:
People who didn't have the one shot missiles get them, those who did now have some points to spend. In both cases the player benefits, the negative is you can't opt to have a smaller model count arguably. Sort of doesn't matter if you festoon your tank in the bits any more as an aside.
So you still have the points to spend, you still need to make a list construction choice, no agency is lost, it's just moved and a little less granular.
2026/02/22 21:08:19
Subject: How Do You Want Named Characters Handled?
Da Boss wrote: That's my issue with the wargear being "not optional" functionally - I just think the aesthetic of tanks completely covered in missiles and smoke launchers and huge dozer blades is awful. So I don't really want to feel like I should have them on there to be WYSIWYG because I'd rather run a more barebones tank for the visuals and it feels bad to either be gameplay penalized or not have my models be clearly readable for my opponent.
Not a big issue in the grand scheme of things, but that's what points costs for those sorts of upgrades did in the past.
Our group has just declared to WYSIWYG has lost to the rule of cool and now everyone builds, prints, buys and plays whatever models they love. Since upgrades are free, there is no longer a need to model a tiny holstered pistol onto some obscure xenos squad leader that no imperial player will recognize anyways, just so you can use it in the once per edition game where it actually makes a difference. And no one has to rip off weapons off lovingly painted models because GW decided to hate cyclone missile launchers or combi-weapons after making them auto-includes for years.
I mean is a hunter killer missile being included in the base layout really any impact on player agency?
You're denying someone the choice to not take a HK, or to not take sponsons - by definition, that's reducing player agency by removing choices.
Just to nitpick here, player agency is defined as giving players meaningful options. If one options is always worse, or if there is just an illusion of choice, removing those choices is not not reducing player agency.
The point here is, that the overwhelming amount wargear choices were never meaningful, despite costing points. Therefore removing those options is not removing player agency.
In addition, player agency by itself is not all upside but just one part of the player experience. If other parts of the game suffer (for example, balance), player agency should be reduced to increase the overall experience of the game.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2026/02/22 21:16:20
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
2026/02/22 21:42:05
Subject: Re:How Do You Want Named Characters Handled?
Lathe Biosas wrote: I'd like to see more Character Detachments like Vulkan He'stan's Forgefather's Seekers.
If you are going to include a Named Character, build a force around them.
There's a way to do it, and I don't like the current way. That's a generic Det with a specific character boost. I mean why wouldn't you used the specific character? I don't know? But that Det should have been more of a character rule than a generic Det with an upgrade.
The problem with the way they did it, they took the Generic Chapter Det - the Det that was from the generic codex designed to represent one of the "codex chapters" way of fighting but open to everyone. Then they took that same det, remade it by sometimes renaming a Strat - and included a specific character escalator. They should have made two. One to make the Salamanders-Only "Salamanders style" Det and one Det just for Vulkan He'stan. The "Seekers Companions" Det rule should have been put on an entirely different Det that requires including He'Stan, and has Det Rules, Enhancements, and Strats that are more obvious and specific to He'Stan. Sticky capping objectives that have been "searched" or providing some other buff while "searching" or to objectives that have not yet been "searched". If they make character specific Dets, it should be extremely story-line based.
Siegfriedfr wrote: Named Characters should only be usable in Crusades / narrative.
In a competitive setting, the models for named character should have a generic datasheet which would be depowered compared to the named datasheet.
General Narrative, yes, but NOT Crusade. Crusade should be more for "your dudes". And frankly, the Crucible of Champions rules should pair well with Crusade.
For some people, the Epic Heroes ARE their dudes. Crusade should have a path for both, even if the first step for Epic Heroes is to unlock Crusade Advancement.
I believe it won't happen but I do wish Crucible was the gateway to filling out alternate-armor generic characters. You want a Judiciar in your Terminator Armor? Here's the path to put a Judiciar in Tournament armor. Or on a bike. You want a Gravis Chaplain? Bike Librarian? Here's the Path. I get this is the first draft, and hope they refine it, though I suspect its just an end of edition lark. I think you could make Captain Davian Thule, but not as well as I'd like. Its a Forge Bolter not a Heavy Bolter and this misses out on SH1. I think you could make a Ravenwing Librarian. I think the Ravenwing Bike Captain that isn't Sammael on a regular bike for a fluffier successor chapter is subpar and could be better made by running a generic foot captain through the process that just adds the cost of the bike to a generic foot captain and applies all the changes mentioned in the bike entry.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2026/02/22 21:54:23
My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings.
2026/02/22 23:33:30
Subject: Re:How Do You Want Named Characters Handled?
So by them being included in the base cost/loadout, you get that and the landspeeder/devastators. I'm still not seeing it as a loss of agency for the players if the vehicle simply.comes with it at no cost.
By including them for free, you've removed the option of NOT taking them, and buying another unit or wargear instead.
Just to break this down, old school:
GW valued the HK missile a handful of points, you chose to either buy them or not, but if you didn't get some dude(s) elsewhere. That is a simple choice. Your army and it's agency/effectiveness is based on whether you want the HK, or some other unit/addition right?
Added side impact: WYSIWYG, you need to paint and add them on to use them in theory.
New school of thought:
People who didn't have the one shot missiles get them, those who did now have some points to spend. In both cases the player benefits, the negative is you can't opt to have a smaller model count arguably. Sort of doesn't matter if you festoon your tank in the bits any more as an aside.
So you still have the points to spend, you still need to make a list construction choice, no agency is lost, it's just moved and a little less granular.
Sorry, I don't follow. Losing granularity is losing places to make choices. But also you could choose to not put the HKs on your tank and just be placing yourself into a disadvantage.
Back in 8th edition I leaned into them heavily, and they were not an afterthought. I typically had 5-6 vehicles, often Rhinos and Razors, and I stuck 
