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.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
I feel like I'm missing something here, Dudeface. Insectum is making sense to me.

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?

Right.

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.

Wrong. Points got adjusted as part of the edition change. You don't, "now have some points to spend," because GW didn't port over the olds points costs and make the HKs free; they (presumably) costed the tank based on its capabilities (including the "optional" HKs).

So you went from having a genuine choice of either putting some of your army's power (points) into the HKs, or into some other upgrades or extra models elsewhere...

to the fake "choice" of taking or leaving the HKs, being charged points like you took the HKs regardless of your choice, and subsequently not having extra points left over to put towards other upgrades/models.

Exactly, so the converse is also true, you can't say that the cost of the HK is also baked in as you don't know what it would cost as a stand alone in 10th. You must simply view them as a free extra.

The other half is instead perspective I think. If you wanted 5 rhinos or whatever in 9th you needed (well, for most of the edition) to make the decision whether to attach the HK at that point, or instead spend the points on something else.

An optimistic perspective in 10th is that they don't cost any points so the decision is gone, you just instead get to go spend points on another unit anyway. You're no longer cannibalising your list for one shot missiles, you get missile and your choice of unit.

As you note, we've 0 frames of reference for rhino without a HK in 10th, it's equally impossible to state whether you paid for them or not, the only objective evidence is that they're included in the options for the vehicle at no additional cost now. They are now free.

Exactly, so the converse is also true, you can't say that the cost of the HK is also baked in as you don't know what it would cost as a stand alone in 10th. You must simply view them as a free extra.
...
As you note, we've 0 frames of reference for rhino without a HK in 10th, it's equally impossible to state whether you paid for them or not, the only objective evidence is that they're included in the options for the vehicle at no additional cost now. They are now free.

I guess I'm giving GW the benefit of the doubt and assuming that they're (at least trying) to factor in a unit's weapons when setting the points cost. If they're not, that strikes me as bad design.

The other half is instead perspective I think. If you wanted 5 rhinos or whatever in 9th you needed (well, for most of the edition) to make the decision whether to attach the HK at that point, or instead spend the points on something else.

An optimistic perspective in 10th is that they don't cost any points so the decision is gone, you just instead get to go spend points on another unit anyway. You're no longer cannibalising your list for one shot missiles, you get missile and your choice of unit.

Okay, I think I see what you're getting at. Let me try to steelman you: You're saying it's kind of like the upside of Power Level from 8th and 9th. Where there would be flavorful but suboptimal options that never got taken because they weren't considered worth the points. With Power Level (and with 10th edition's approach) there's no downside to taking those options unless they compete with another choice in the same slot.

So maybe you'd never take a power sword on a swooping hawks exarch in 8th edition because it wasn't worth the 5(?) points, but you'd take it if you were using PL because it was "free," and you're viewing that as an upside because it means you get to use options you'd have passed on otherwise.

Am I understanding you correctly? If so, I'd say that's a valid silver lining but that Insectum is still right about it being a reduction in player choice. They've still functionally removed a meaningful choice (HKs vs more models or upgrades elsewhere in the list); they've just also (silver lining) given you a reason to play with some of the unpopular options you'd struggle to justify in the past.

And I'd also note that, at least for my eldar and dark eldar, a lot of those suboptimal options have been removed in 10th or made to compete with other options. Power blades aren't an add-on that I can have regardless of other choices now; now they prevent me from having certain gun options. A power sword on my hawkxarch now requires that I take the lacklustre pistol for my ranged weapon, which actually makes me less likely to take the power sword than in the past. (I have a guy modeled with a rifle and sword.)

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Exactly, so the converse is also true, you can't say that the cost of the HK is also baked in as you don't know what it would cost as a stand alone in 10th. You must simply view them as a free extra.
...
As you note, we've 0 frames of reference for rhino without a HK in 10th, it's equally impossible to state whether you paid for them or not, the only objective evidence is that they're included in the options for the vehicle at no additional cost now. They are now free.

I guess I'm giving GW the benefit of the doubt and assuming that they're (at least trying) to factor in a unit's weapons when setting the points cost. If they're not, that strikes me as bad design.

The other half is instead perspective I think. If you wanted 5 rhinos or whatever in 9th you needed (well, for most of the edition) to make the decision whether to attach the HK at that point, or instead spend the points on something else.

An optimistic perspective in 10th is that they don't cost any points so the decision is gone, you just instead get to go spend points on another unit anyway. You're no longer cannibalising your list for one shot missiles, you get missile and your choice of unit.

Okay, I think I see what you're getting at. Let me try to steelman you: You're saying it's kind of like the upside of Power Level from 8th and 9th. Where there would be flavorful but suboptimal options that never got taken because they weren't considered worth the points. With Power Level (and with 10th edition's approach) there's no downside to taking those options unless they compete with another choice in the same slot.

So maybe you'd never take a power sword on a swooping hawks exarch in 8th edition because it wasn't worth the 5(?) points, but you'd take it if you were using PL because it was "free," and you're viewing that as an upside because it means you get to use options you'd have passed on otherwise.

Am I understanding you correctly? If so, I'd say that's a valid silver lining but that Insectum is still right about it being a reduction in player choice. They've still functionally removed a meaningful choice (HKs vs more models or upgrades elsewhere in the list); they've just also (silver lining) given you a reason to play with some of the unpopular options you'd struggle to justify in the past.

And I'd also note that, at least for my eldar and dark eldar, a lot of those suboptimal options have been removed in 10th or made to compete with other options. Power blades aren't an add-on that I can have regardless of other choices now; now they prevent me from having certain gun options. A power sword on my hawkxarch now requires that I take the lacklustre pistol for my ranged weapon, which actually makes me less likely to take the power sword than in the past. (I have a guy modeled with a rifle and sword.)

I think you summed it reasonably well. If you always took HK and ringfenced 80 pts in listbuildong or whatever, well you don't need to any more. If you never took them because you liked more models, well you got them thrown in as a bonus. All positives there really and hence agency concerns drop off as there isn't any meaningful expression lost.

If they'd listed rhinos as a base cost, a HK price and said "they all come in the base loadout" and it meant for some players their decision to not and instead have more bodies was no longer possible, I can understand that. But from my perspective that hasn't happened.

I will add for sponsons and some wargear it is absolutely the wrong choice and I can understand wanting a russ to be 25% or so cheaper and have no sponsons so you can fit more chassis in. That choice has been removed. The little faff bits like havoc launchers or HK etc are all just not worth being upset a out imo.

Dudeface wrote:

I think you summed it reasonably well. If you always took HK and ringfenced 80 pts in listbuildong or whatever, well you don't need to any more. If you never took them because you liked more models, well you got them thrown in as a bonus. All positives there really and hence agency concerns drop off as there isn't any meaningful expression lost.

If they'd listed rhinos as a base cost, a HK price and said "they all come in the base loadout" and it meant for some players their decision to not and instead have more bodies was no longer possible, I can understand that. But from my perspective that hasn't happened.

I will add for sponsons and some wargear it is absolutely the wrong choice and I can understand wanting a russ to be 25% or so cheaper and have no sponsons so you can fit more chassis in. That choice has been removed. The little faff bits like havoc launchers or HK etc are all just not worth being upset a out imo.

"No meaningful expression lost" is obviously pure opinion, which will change from person to person. Objectively speaking there are still options for optimization lost if we assume that points costs for units were made with optional upgrades in mind (as they should be) in which you're still missing the option of going "lean" a few units to add minor upgrades elsewhere. If you're still recommending points costs for sponsons we're just talking about granularity.

And on the "meaningful expression" part of it, an HK here and an HK there may not seem like much. But in the context where most people didn't take them because they didn't want to spend a few extra points, you roll up with a list that commits and fires off 6-10 of them in the first turn to nice effect, I'd argue that's a more meaningful expression than whether or not some Russ's have sponsons. You've taken an option that most people scoff at, and put it to a surprising and effective use catching your opponent off guard. Now that they're free it's kinda less of a statement.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

I think you summed it reasonably well. If you always took HK and ringfenced 80 pts in listbuildong or whatever, well you don't need to any more. If you never took them because you liked more models, well you got them thrown in as a bonus. All positives there really and hence agency concerns drop off as there isn't any meaningful expression lost.

If they'd listed rhinos as a base cost, a HK price and said "they all come in the base loadout" and it meant for some players their decision to not and instead have more bodies was no longer possible, I can understand that. But from my perspective that hasn't happened.

I will add for sponsons and some wargear it is absolutely the wrong choice and I can understand wanting a russ to be 25% or so cheaper and have no sponsons so you can fit more chassis in. That choice has been removed. The little faff bits like havoc launchers or HK etc are all just not worth being upset a out imo.

"No meaningful expression lost" is obviously pure opinion, which will change from person to person. Objectively speaking there are still options for optimization lost if we assume that points costs for units were made with optional upgrades in mind (as they should be) in which you're still missing the option of going "lean" a few units to add minor upgrades elsewhere. If you're still recommending points costs for sponsons we're just talking about granularity.

And on the "meaningful expression" part of it, an HK here and an HK there may not seem like much. But in the context where most people didn't take them because they didn't want to spend a few extra points, you roll up with a list that commits and fires off 6-10 of them in the first turn to nice effect, I'd argue that's a more meaningful expression than whether or not some Russ's have sponsons. You've taken an option that most people scoff at, and put it to a surprising and effective use catching your opponent off guard. Now that they're free it's kinda less of a statement.

I mean I'm happy to agree to disagree as a lot of it is subjective. I'm on record saying the wargear doesn't need points at all if they balance it correctly, they just haven't.

With regards your above exmaple, that in game expressionism is still there, you can still opt to build a list with a lot of HK platforms and use them for an alpha strike, you just likely have an extra 5 man unit as well now rather than having to make a sacrifice to get the missiles.

That's why it isn't any real loss of agency, you can still do what you wanted to do before, express your play style how you wanted. I just don't agree your agency has been impacted because the small extra unit is now an AND rather than an OR. They've not taken away anything that impacts your play style or tactical choices.

Dudeface wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

I think you summed it reasonably well. If you always took HK and ringfenced 80 pts in listbuildong or whatever, well you don't need to any more. If you never took them because you liked more models, well you got them thrown in as a bonus. All positives there really and hence agency concerns drop off as there isn't any meaningful expression lost.

If they'd listed rhinos as a base cost, a HK price and said "they all come in the base loadout" and it meant for some players their decision to not and instead have more bodies was no longer possible, I can understand that. But from my perspective that hasn't happened.

I will add for sponsons and some wargear it is absolutely the wrong choice and I can understand wanting a russ to be 25% or so cheaper and have no sponsons so you can fit more chassis in. That choice has been removed. The little faff bits like havoc launchers or HK etc are all just not worth being upset a out imo.

"No meaningful expression lost" is obviously pure opinion, which will change from person to person. Objectively speaking there are still options for optimization lost if we assume that points costs for units were made with optional upgrades in mind (as they should be) in which you're still missing the option of going "lean" a few units to add minor upgrades elsewhere. If you're still recommending points costs for sponsons we're just talking about granularity.

And on the "meaningful expression" part of it, an HK here and an HK there may not seem like much. But in the context where most people didn't take them because they didn't want to spend a few extra points, you roll up with a list that commits and fires off 6-10 of them in the first turn to nice effect, I'd argue that's a more meaningful expression than whether or not some Russ's have sponsons. You've taken an option that most people scoff at, and put it to a surprising and effective use catching your opponent off guard. Now that they're free it's kinda less of a statement.

I mean I'm happy to agree to disagree as a lot of it is subjective. I'm on record saying the wargear doesn't need points at all if they balance it correctly, they just haven't.

With regards your above exmaple, that in game expressionism is still there, you can still opt to build a list with a lot of HK platforms and use them for an alpha strike, you just likely have an extra 5 man unit as well now rather than having to make a sacrifice to get the missiles.

That's why it isn't any real loss of agency, you can still do what you wanted to do before, express your play style how you wanted. I just don't agree your agency has been impacted because the small extra unit is now an AND rather than an OR. They've not taken away anything that impacts your play style or tactical choices.

To add to what Insectum wrote, I'll note that sometimes taking unpopular choices was fun because it gave your dudes a sense of personality and uniqueness. A power sword on a sybarite wasn't generally an optimal build, but spending the points anyway because you like the idea of your sybarite being a spicy little melee addict and then watching him occassionally punch up (especially back when initiative and Furious Charge were a thing) could be really satisfying. Similarly, "wasting" points on a power sword for my hawkxarch let me express this story that the exarch's shrine emphasizes swooping into melee as a means of staying constantly in motion, like Faolchu evading the arrows of his enemies, or whatever. In the 10th edition index when power swords were free for hawkxarchs (and didn't lock out gun options like they do now), everyone tossed a power sword on their hawkxarch because why wouldn't you?

Admittedly, this is a sort of gamey thing that only exists in that fuzzy hobby area where game meets fluff, but that sort of thing is one of the major ingredients that feels like it's missing from 10th edition. When people talk about 10th not feeling very flavorful, I think about my cheeky suboptimal power weapons and the fluff I headcanoned onto my models about them.

tldr; taking away the choice to pay for a suboptimal add-on doesn't necessarily impact my tactical chocies, but it does kind of take away an aspect of my fluff/hobby choices.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

I think you summed it reasonably well. If you always took HK and ringfenced 80 pts in listbuildong or whatever, well you don't need to any more. If you never took them because you liked more models, well you got them thrown in as a bonus. All positives there really and hence agency concerns drop off as there isn't any meaningful expression lost.

If they'd listed rhinos as a base cost, a HK price and said "they all come in the base loadout" and it meant for some players their decision to not and instead have more bodies was no longer possible, I can understand that. But from my perspective that hasn't happened.

I will add for sponsons and some wargear it is absolutely the wrong choice and I can understand wanting a russ to be 25% or so cheaper and have no sponsons so you can fit more chassis in. That choice has been removed. The little faff bits like havoc launchers or HK etc are all just not worth being upset a out imo.

"No meaningful expression lost" is obviously pure opinion, which will change from person to person. Objectively speaking there are still options for optimization lost if we assume that points costs for units were made with optional upgrades in mind (as they should be) in which you're still missing the option of going "lean" a few units to add minor upgrades elsewhere. If you're still recommending points costs for sponsons we're just talking about granularity.

And on the "meaningful expression" part of it, an HK here and an HK there may not seem like much. But in the context where most people didn't take them because they didn't want to spend a few extra points, you roll up with a list that commits and fires off 6-10 of them in the first turn to nice effect, I'd argue that's a more meaningful expression than whether or not some Russ's have sponsons. You've taken an option that most people scoff at, and put it to a surprising and effective use catching your opponent off guard. Now that they're free it's kinda less of a statement.

I mean I'm happy to agree to disagree as a lot of it is subjective. I'm on record saying the wargear doesn't need points at all if they balance it correctly, they just haven't.

With regards your above exmaple, that in game expressionism is still there, you can still opt to build a list with a lot of HK platforms and use them for an alpha strike, you just likely have an extra 5 man unit as well now rather than having to make a sacrifice to get the missiles.

That's why it isn't any real loss of agency, you can still do what you wanted to do before, express your play style how you wanted. I just don't agree your agency has been impacted because the small extra unit is now an AND rather than an OR. They've not taken away anything that impacts your play style or tactical choices.

To add to what Insectum wrote, I'll note that sometimes taking unpopular choices was fun because it gave your dudes a sense of personality and uniqueness. A power sword on a sybarite wasn't generally an optimal build, but spending the points anyway because you like the idea of your sybarite being a spicy little melee addict and then watching him occassionally punch up (especially back when initiative and Furious Charge were a thing) could be really satisfying. Similarly, "wasting" points on a power sword for my hawkxarch let me express this story that the exarch's shrine emphasizes swooping into melee as a means of staying constantly in motion, like Faolchu evading the arrows of his enemies, or whatever. In the 10th edition index when power swords were free for hawkxarchs (and didn't lock out gun options like they do now), everyone tossed a power sword on their hawkxarch because why wouldn't you?

Admittedly, this is a sort of gamey thing that only exists in that fuzzy hobby area where game meets fluff, but that sort of thing is one of the major ingredients that feels like it's missing from 10th edition. When people talk about 10th not feeling very flavorful, I think about my cheeky suboptimal power weapons and the fluff I headcanoned onto my models about them.

tldr; taking away the choice to pay for a suboptimal add-on doesn't necessarily impact my tactical chocies, but it does kind of take away an aspect of my fluff/hobby choices.

I dont see how your fluff/hobby choice has been taken away.
Your sword weilding Hawk still has something few other players do - a story reason to have that sword.

Dudeface wrote:
I mean I'm happy to agree to disagree as a lot of it is subjective. I'm on record saying the wargear doesn't need points at all if they balance it correctly, they just haven't.

With regards your above exmaple, that in game expressionism is still there, you can still opt to build a list with a lot of HK platforms and use them for an alpha strike, you just likely have an extra 5 man unit as well now rather than having to make a sacrifice to get the missiles.

That's why it isn't any real loss of agency, you can still do what you wanted to do before, express your play style how you wanted. I just don't agree your agency has been impacted because the small extra unit is now an AND rather than an OR. They've not taken away anything that impacts your play style or tactical choices.

To be fair, I see Insectum's point. I think you are focused too much on actual hunter-killer missiles vs marines example. The more abstract version of their stance is that there used to a hand full of decisions in the game where it was reasonable to decide between more damage/utility on existing models or more models and that they feel like this is now missing from the game.

That said, those decisions were few and far between. In most cases taking more bodies was always the right choice unless an upgrade was an auto-takes.

I feel like building a list in 10th requires much more meaningful decisions that any of the previous edition. Since you often don't want to take three of a unit, or a single instance of a unit is sufficient to cover your bases, you play much more different units. In addition, units like gretchin or stormboyz are mandatory to win games consistently, so you still take "marines vs HK" decisions by bringing units whose damage output is next to nothing over units with a ton of guns stuck to them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:
I dont see how your fluff/hobby choice has been taken away.
Your sword weilding Hawk still has something few other players do - a story reason to have that sword.

Agree. If anything, fluff and hobby choice were held back by the rules, not enabled by them.
My nob "Manslaughter" still has a story to tell despite not being able to kill a whole squad of guardsmen on his own for many editions now.

 Jidmah wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
I mean I'm happy to agree to disagree as a lot of it is subjective. I'm on record saying the wargear doesn't need points at all if they balance it correctly, they just haven't.

With regards your above exmaple, that in game expressionism is still there, you can still opt to build a list with a lot of HK platforms and use them for an alpha strike, you just likely have an extra 5 man unit as well now rather than having to make a sacrifice to get the missiles.

That's why it isn't any real loss of agency, you can still do what you wanted to do before, express your play style how you wanted. I just don't agree your agency has been impacted because the small extra unit is now an AND rather than an OR. They've not taken away anything that impacts your play style or tactical choices.

To be fair, I see Insectum's point. I think you are focused too much on actual hunter-killer missiles vs marines example. The more abstract version of their stance is that there used to a hand full of decisions in the game where it was reasonable to decide between more damage/utility on existing models or more models and that they feel like this is now missing from the game.

That said, those decisions were few and far between. In most cases taking more bodies was always the right choice unless an upgrade was an auto-takes.

I feel like building a list in 10th requires much more meaningful decisions that any of the previous edition. Since you often don't want to take three of a unit, or a single instance of a unit is sufficient to cover your bases, you play much more different units. In addition, units like gretchin or stormboyz are mandatory to win games consistently, so you still take "marines vs HK" decisions by bringing units whose damage output is next to nothing over units with a ton of guns stuck to them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:
I dont see how your fluff/hobby choice has been taken away.
Your sword weilding Hawk still has something few other players do - a story reason to have that sword.

Agree. If anything, fluff and hobby choice were held back by the rules, not enabled by them.
My nob "Manslaughter" still has a story to tell despite not being able to kill a whole squad of guardsmen on his own for many editions now.

Being honest I can see Insectums point as well, I admit the difference in taking no sponsons to have more stuff is a valid point of agency during list construction. I think once you get down to "I want to pay to upgrade my laspistol to a bolt pistol" level, or even the HK as noted above, it simply doesn't objectively impact enough to have reduced any agency.

I agree with the list building actually producing some harder choices atm though.

The fluff on the suboptimal choices actually highlights the division on wargear costs and granularity nicely. It also reinforces what is important to people. The issue is 10th removed both the transactional element which is creating a false sense of personality, alongside some of the "bad" options.

If someone's beloved chaos lord used to have their favourite chainsword. That has gone, it's now an accursed weapon, they can still use it, be modelled with it, play like their narrative in their head. This is a sticking point for some because chainsword is chainsword and must do chainsword things exactly as a chainsword should. I don't agree but can see it. The other way this impacts is the hawks power sword. If the exarch wants a power sword there was a transactional point of hitting a button/switch/pen and the imaginary currency of points was spent, creating a sense of virtual ownership. The narrative is still there, the weapon is still there, the transaction is gone.

Which is bizarre when you think about it.

Upgrades can also dramatically change how a unit is used.

Space marine scouts used to be a good example. You could take them naked, with just the free options (knives, bolters, shotguns) for like 55 points. Cheep distration/screening unit. For that role you didn’t want a lot of gear.

But you could also give them all camo cloaks and sniper rifles, one guy got a heavy. Doubled their points, unit was now ~100. Dramaticly different role. Now they were a fire support unit able to deal with different threats.

In 10th? We are locked into one unit that kinda does both, but not well. Might as well take the one rile you are allowed, and we’re paying for the heavy anyway. Can’t run them cheep and cheerful. One size fits most. Poorly.

 Nevelon wrote:
Upgrades can also dramatically change how a unit is used.

Space marine scouts used to be a good example. You could take them naked, with just the free options (knives, bolters, shotguns) for like 55 points. Cheep distration/screening unit. For that role you didn’t want a lot of gear.

But you could also give them all camo cloaks and sniper rifles, one guy got a heavy. Doubled their points, unit was now ~100. Dramaticly different role. Now they were a fire support unit able to deal with different threats.

In 10th? We are locked into one unit that kinda does both, but not well. Might as well take the one rile you are allowed, and we’re paying for the heavy anyway. Can’t run them cheep and cheerful. One size fits most. Poorly.

Being fair that's at least in part the act of shoving a kill team into a 40k unit that shares it's space with 4 other units already.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Negative. You wouldn't say a theoretical 10 point upgrade to a Tactical Squad of 10 one-shot Lascannons (one point per shot) would be balanced. Units are delivery systems for weapons, and the "real" weapon cost is some combination of weapon+delivery system.

Its not 10 one shots. Or even 2 five shots. Its one and done. You can't really mass it. You cant chip-chip-chip all game long. It no longer has any chance at all to 1shot a tank. It averages about a wound and a half into a LRBT. For the entire 5 turn game. The Lascannon turret on a Razorback does 2.2 a turn and can shoot 5 turns. This Lascannon Razorback with HK is even - on average - not able to kill that Leman Russ. Even if that Russ never fires back, it ends the game with about half a wound left. HK Missiles may not be worth a full point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nevelon wrote:
Upgrades can also dramatically change how a unit is used.

Space marine scouts used to be a good example. You could take them naked, with just the free options (knives, bolters, shotguns) for like 55 points. Cheep distration/screening unit. For that role you didn’t want a lot of gear.

But you could also give them all camo cloaks and sniper rifles, one guy got a heavy. Doubled their points, unit was now ~100. Dramaticly different role. Now they were a fire support unit able to deal with different threats.

In 10th? We are locked into one unit that kinda does both, but not well. Might as well take the one rile you are allowed, and we’re paying for the heavy anyway. Can’t run them cheep and cheerful. One size fits most. Poorly.

I still took the camo cloak sniper scouts with the Heavy. And Telion (who really wonked with how much force they had to estimate they needed). The price difference wasn't large enough to offset the headache they caused. Most people didn't have the ability to adjust and either sent too much or too little after them if they sent anything at all. Most often they didn't. Either because they didn't know how much to send, or didn't connect the "expensive" version to the cheap purpose.

Dudeface wrote:

If someone's beloved chaos lord used to have their favourite chainsword. That has gone, it's now an accursed weapon, they can still use it, be modelled with it, play like their narrative in their head. This is a sticking point for some because chainsword is chainsword and must do chainsword things exactly as a chainsword should. I don't agree but can see it. The other way this impacts is the hawks power sword. If the exarch wants a power sword there was a transactional point of hitting a button/switch/pen and the imaginary currency of points was spent, creating a sense of virtual ownership. The narrative is still there, the weapon is still there, the transaction is gone.

Which is bizarre when you think about it.

I think the secret sauce when it comes to the index hawkxarch example is that giving my boy a power sword no longer felt "special." He could have the same lore as before. He could have the same playstyle as before (ignoring edition/datasheet changes). But he couldn't my special boy with an unorthodox little something extra in his kit because everyone was taking a power sword because there was no reason not to. Which, I acknowledge, is a very specific thing to whine about. But I think a relevant one when it comes to discussing how we engage with the hobby and get enjoyment out of it.

Regarding the chainsword vs accursed weapon thing, I don't particularly mind that example because ultimately I tend to picture most common melee weapons (chainswords, power swords, etc.) doing more or less the same job. However, I did sort of have a similar gripe with my index drukharis' "sybarite weapons." Once upon a time, you could give a sybarite a venom blade, power sword, or agonizer. The first wounded anything that wasn't a vehicle on a 2+ but wasn't great at getting through armor. The power weapon was a power weapon. The agonizer was kind of a fusion of the two but also cost more points. None of these options were generally considered worth the points in past editions, but they each gave the sybarite a distinctive bit of personality. Was your sybarite a practical but unflashy splinter rifle guy? Or did he like the thrill of melee enough to eschew practicality and go with a fancy melee weapon that let him show off and play with his food more easily? The agonizer was the "best" choice but also expensive and focused on disabling rather than killing. Kind of made him feel like a guy with the cash/status to afford something expensive (even though points don't actually translate to in-universe currency) and maybe a bit more focused on hurting foes and taking slaves. The power sword had a slight edge against certain foes if you had Furious Charge to go with it, making him feel like either a more serious duelist or someone who emphasized keeping up momentum by charging from one fight to the next. The venom blade was quirky; either a poor man's agonizer or a weapon for someone who just wanted to pick on lightly armored foes and laugh as he took them out with just a tiny scratch. Or maybe he had a thing for actual poison (as opposed to the agonizer which had the poison rule but was fluffed as using advanced tech to somehow light up nerves directly), letting you write some connection to your coven ally's pinache for toxins or some affiliation with Shaimesh fans.

Long-winded way of saying you used to be able to give your sybarite a lot of personality and somewhat distinctive mechanical roles through your melee options, and then the index version just gave you generic "sybarite weapons" which weren't generally good enough to feel like an agonizer, weren't good enough at cracking armor to feel like a power sword (and had no Furious Charge rule to lean into), and didn't have that sweet Poison 2+ rule to make you chuckle as your basic little sergeant model wounded a carnifex on 2+. Basically the scout issue of feeling like a watered down fusion of the other more distinctive builds of yester-year.

(The current codex version essentially just replaced sybarite weapons with an agoniser. Which is called a "power weapon" but has anti-infantry 3+. So an agonizer.)

HK missile being worth less than 1 pt is an insane take. Would you take 10 pts to add 10 hunter killer missiles to a vehicle? You would take 500 HK missiles and delete the entire enemy army.

Weapons have diminishing returns, they aren't equally valueable turn 5 and turn 1, because some amount of your army is dead. One-shot weapons are not a fifth as good as normal weapons, it depends on how high value the tank is as a target, on a high value target one-shot weapons are great because the vehicle is going to get destroyed before the end of the game anyway, on a low value target then getting additional chip damage throughout the game would be valueable, where as a one-shot weapon is less relevant.

How is a wound and a half on a Leman Russ worth less than 1 pt? Let's say I have a weapon that kills 1 Leman Russ per turn, that must be worth less than 1*13/1,5*5=43 pts. So if I make a custom Land Raider with a Raider Missile Array that on average kills 1 Leman Russ per turn in addition to exisiting weapons, it needs to cost at most 40 pts extra compared to a normal Land Raider? I take 3 of them and I destroy 3 extra Leman Russes per turn.

Breton wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Negative. You wouldn't say a theoretical 10 point upgrade to a Tactical Squad of 10 one-shot Lascannons (one point per shot) would be balanced. Units are delivery systems for weapons, and the "real" weapon cost is some combination of weapon+delivery system.

Its not 10 one shots. Or even 2 five shots. Its one and done. You can't really mass it. You cant chip-chip-chip all game long. It no longer has any chance at all to 1shot a tank. It averages about a wound and a half into a LRBT. For the entire 5 turn game. The Lascannon turret on a Razorback does 2.2 a turn and can shoot 5 turns. This Lascannon Razorback with HK is even - on average - not able to kill that Leman Russ. Even if that Russ never fires back, it ends the game with about half a wound left. HK Missiles may not be worth a full point.

If you play guard armies, especially if they have lots of sentinels as well as tanks, it can absolutely be 10+ across the whole army. That’s 15 wounds on a Russ and absolutely has value.