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.

The handwriting seems to be on the wall that paying points per weapon will go away as we see more codex where weapon upgrades are free.

What do people think, assuming 10th is a major reboot is that the direction they will go in? Should they?

For me the idea works when various weapon options are comparable.

For the Imperial Guard you could have the plasma gun (kills everything, sometimes including you), melta gun (kills tanks, short range), flamer (kills light infantry, shorter range) and grenade launcher (kills nothing, kind of sucks). And a case could be made for taking any of them.

If the game became less granular, back to all power weapons having the same stats for example, it could work. The only people who'd miss out are the people who modeled 'naked' units to save points.

Will they, I think they may.

Should they, depends on how competent you think GW is.

I think it can work In a game with good mission and faction design.
If you could bring in niche weapons when needed against opponents that are special or break the meta.
Then it can a big deal and a fun way to change up the gameplay.

But as the game is now, if they don’t do a full reboot, I think all it accomplish will be shifting stuff around and a new best edition ever Tag.

It won't bother me one way or the other.

But if they do? It will amuse me a great deal to hear all the wailing & gnashing of teeth. Both here on-line and at the local shops. As will reading the pages long rants that'll surely be typed by people who think they know best how to make a game (but don't).

I think for many units, this is fine. A lot of standard troops that have 10 models where 1 of them has a special weapon and 1 of them has a heavy weapon really do not need to be worrying about the point costs of those weapons - as the game is, they seldom earn their points back anyway.

There are some units that change dramatically based on their upgrades, such as Chaos Marine Havocs. 4 lascannons is very different than 4 heavy bolters and traditionally those lascannons have been much more expensive.

The downside to many upgrades being made 'free' is that often the points calculations that go into the unit consider the most expensive or powerful options. In other words, you're punished in a points-efficiency manner for NOT taking the most effective weapons for your units ALL the time, because those units were made more expensive considering you would add those weapons.

In Age of Sigmar, this often works because all you're paying for is a banner and a champion, which you were taking anyway.

Overall I think it would be a good change. Many people would not feel punished because they built their units a certain way 10 years ago - they can still take those units and now all those upgrades, however small, are free.

I like how even in the OP's example of Guard weapons, the options clearly aren't equal, and therefore shouldn't be costed (or not) as such...

Since most weapons are just small variations in stats and don't really change how the units are played I think consolidating most of the weapons and removing point costs is the way to go forward.

Like for the imperium have all the normal power weapons that are anti elite infantry have the same stats and then have all the power weapons that are anti tank/monster have the same. So the only options are power sword or thunderhammer stats.

Way easier for everyone to build models that look cool. Way less rules to keep in mind for the players and also vastly less things the game designer needs to think of when balancing the game.

We already have a ton of units with different stats and abilities. That should be enough to make a difference on the table even if there were a total of 5-10 marine weapons for melee + ranged.

Most other games function with less weapons than the amount of different marine bolters in the game and some even have less than some single models in 40k. If you went back 15 years and showed the players then the long lists of weapons we have now I would bet most would think it was satire.

I hope not. The next step would be to get rid of all points, and just use the absurdity which is PL.

They will. They shouldn't.

Upgrades are not all equal, and making them free means you always take the best, and it means that one of your levers of balance (points changes) become even more useless (see the current Tyranid Warriors).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They will. They shouldn't.

Upgrades are not all equal, and making them free means you always take the best, and it means that one of your levers of balance (points changes) become even more useless (see the current Tyranid Warriors).

This.
Also with making equipment cost universal in the past pretty much army wide they already provoked problems.
an exemple: A flamer did cost 5 pts, regardless who bought it. a BS 4 Veteran or a BS 2 recruit. Which one profited more from the flamer? obviously the recruit.

The inverse a melta / plasma gun did cost 15 pts, regardless if a Veteran bought it or a guardsmen. There's just one issue, the veteran has an increased capability by an additional 1/6th on the hit roll.

That allready was rather absurd, since it made the weapons on the accurate units either superior (in some cases far considering the meltas of ye olde days) or worse . and whilest a plasmagun at 15 pts for a guardsmen was ok, especially in rapid fire range, a plasma gun vet was a lot better at using it.

Now we have even left that granularity when everythings equal in points, there's no more opportunity cost associated with just taking the best option because why shouldn't i take 4 lascannons and a plasmagun on my havocs instead of Autocannons or ML?


GW doing so is kind of inevitable and the problems that will spark will however also lead to ever more equipment restrictions, like the traitorguardsmen squad becoming preciscly 1 melta, 1 plasma and 1 GL and NOT specialised equipment for a task.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They will. They shouldn't.

Upgrades are not all equal, and making them free means you always take the best, and it means that one of your levers of balance (points changes) become even more useless (see the current Tyranid Warriors).

Spot on.

I genuinenly believe someone in the design team thinks he is being clever and managing to turn points into power level without anyone noticing.

There isn't as much gnashing of teeth over it as there perhaps should be because the internal and external balance of the codexes have been so poor this edition it hasn't mattered too much. If we ever see that improve we may see more people comment on it. But, I suspect if we ever see that improvement it will be because of staffing changes at GW and most likely "man bad at counting" will be on the chopping block in such a hypothetical.

I’m thinking I’ve missed something here. Is this just a thought exercise, or have there been indications the game may go that way?

Because it really shouldn’t. Even adding a Heavy Weapon to a squad changes it’s overall tactical applications, especially now you can split fire, as taking say a Lascannon no longer leaves the rest of the squad as Surplus Wounds.

Add in not every Codex having similar options and it just sounds like a bad idea, as those with the option to take a varying weapon loadout will have zero drawbacks to shoehorning in as many as possible, giving their forces a degree of flexibility an opponent is simply without.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’m thinking I’ve missed something here. Is this just a thought exercise, or have there been indications the game may go that way?

Because it really shouldn’t. Even adding a Heavy Weapon to a squad changes it’s overall tactical applications, especially now you can split fire, as taking say a Lascannon no longer leaves the rest of the squad as Surplus Wounds.

Add in not every Codex having similar options and it just sounds like a bad idea, as those with the option to take a varying weapon loadout will have zero drawbacks to shoehorning in as many as possible, giving their forces a degree of flexibility an opponent is simply without.

It is sadly going this way, e.g. traitor guardsmen. Oh and the shoehorning will just lead to armies that had options for units to far more limited datasheets with far more specific options.

I could've also brought up commandos, which in the past could pick 2 specials and be a small tankhunter team f.e. which now are stuck with a 1/ and not more, making a lot of the equipment somewhat pointless atleast in 40k compared to killteam.

EightFoldPath wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They will. They shouldn't.

Upgrades are not all equal, and making them free means you always take the best, and it means that one of your levers of balance (points changes) become even more useless (see the current Tyranid Warriors).

Spot on.

I genuinenly believe someone in the design team thinks he is being clever and managing to turn points into power level without anyone noticing.

There isn't as much gnashing of teeth over it as there perhaps should be because the internal and external balance of the codexes have been so poor this edition it hasn't mattered too much. If we ever see that improve we may see more people comment on it. But, I suspect if we ever see that improvement it will be because of staffing changes at GW and most likely "man bad at counting" will be on the chopping block in such a hypothetical.

This sorta stuff I think would be at least partially pushed by management. Since most game design should pick up so many of these issues.
Sometimes I do think GW was the ones most affected by the forge the narrative advertising. It explain so much from a management perspective.

I think it's a terrible idea and I don't think GW will do it. If they do get rid of it I think fan-made pts patches are going to become popular, like when AoS used wounds instead of PL.

Fine-tuning balance by changing pts is easier than fine-tuning balance by changing rules. Changing pts is easier than changing rules. There is no good argument for getting rid of pts for wargear.

Age of Sigmar does not have pts for wargear. Saurus Warriors can either have spears or clubs, in the last competitive patch of the game spears had almost no benefit over clubs because they changed game rules to favour infantry by making every melee weapon have spear-like range, that makes spears a non-option for Saurus Warriors so you have to proxy or rip your models apart. Two ways to fix this: don't make every weapon into a spear and just adjust the points of underperforming infantry or reduce the price of spears to reflect their lack of value.

Gauss blasters and tesla carbines are balanced against each other at the moment on Immortals, so they don't need to have a pts cost and if GW makes more weapons use the same profile because there isn't an interesting and fluff based reason for them to be different then make them the same and cost the same amount of pts.

We had this discussion a few months ago if I recall correctly.

drbored wrote:
I think for many units, this is fine. A lot of standard troops that have 10 models where 1 of them has a special weapon and 1 of them has a heavy weapon really do not need to be worrying about the point costs of those weapons - as the game is, they seldom earn their points back anyway.

A bolt pistol is better than a las pistol therefore it should cost more.

In Age of Sigmar, this often works because all you're paying for is a banner and a champion, which you were taking anyway.

Except it doesn't work in AoS because running a unit without a full command group is a non-option. Same thing with the mentally underdeveloped free terrain pieces that some factions get.

Overall I think it would be a good change. Many people would not feel punished because they built their units a certain way 10 years ago - they can still take those units and now all those upgrades, however small, are free.

And how about all the people that built their units without all the free upgrades 0 years ago? The only way for everyone to be able to have their way is if the pts for every option is as right as possible so that whether you go armed to the teeth or barebones you pay a fair price for what you get and you don't lose out on anything or pay overmuch for little benefit.

Klickor wrote:
So the only options are power sword or thunderhammer stats.

And which stats are going to enable those two to be worth the same amount of pts and the same amount of pts as a chainsword as well?

Way easier for everyone to build models that look cool.

Unless you built your Sergeant with a chainsword then you're wrong and stupid for not giving him free bling. Your argument makes no sense.

ccs wrote:
It won't bother me one way or the other.

But if they do? It will amuse me a great deal to hear all the wailing & gnashing of teeth. Both here on-line and at the local shops. As will reading the pages long rants that'll surely be typed by people who think they know best how to make a game (but don't).

Clearly the guys who never considered that Salamanders players would spam flamers or use the two flamer Stratagems printed in the same book would be used in a combo know what's best for the game. /SARCASM

As a Tau player, I will look forward to this.
As a Tau player, I will not look forward to this if everything gets costed by the most expensive option.

Yes, the Stormsurge and the Riptide don't need to pay for nonweapon equipment, but I'm looking to the Crisis Weaponry...

They should not.

I don't trust GW to come up with a different and better way how to balance a Squad with nothing / Flamers and one with everything / Lascannons / Plasma / Melter.

I won't be "gnashing and wailing" if all unit upgrades become free, but I will be disappointed. It is just lazy for a company of GW's size, and PL and open play already exist for quick, casual games.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They will. They shouldn't.

Upgrades are not all equal, and making them free means you always take the best, and it means that one of your levers of balance (points changes) become even more useless (see the current Tyranid Warriors).

This.
Also with making equipment cost universal in the past pretty much army wide they already provoked problems.
an exemple: A flamer did cost 5 pts, regardless who bought it. a BS 4 Veteran or a BS 2 recruit. Which one profited more from the flamer? obviously the recruit.

The inverse a melta / plasma gun did cost 15 pts, regardless if a Veteran bought it or a guardsmen. There's just one issue, the veteran has an increased capability by an additional 1/6th on the hit roll.

That allready was rather absurd, since it made the weapons on the accurate units either superior (in some cases far considering the meltas of ye olde days) or worse . and whilest a plasmagun at 15 pts for a guardsmen was ok, especially in rapid fire range, a plasma gun vet was a lot better at using it.

Now we have even left that granularity when everythings equal in points, there's no more opportunity cost associated with just taking the best option because why shouldn't i take 4 lascannons and a plasmagun on my havocs instead of Autocannons or ML?


GW doing so is kind of inevitable and the problems that will spark will however also lead to ever more equipment restrictions, like the traitorguardsmen squad becoming preciscly 1 melta, 1 plasma and 1 GL and NOT specialised equipment for a task.

The most frustrating part is the GW design team once understood this much better, but have trended towards dumbing down points since ~5th edition.

For example, in the Imperial Guard 3rd edition (1st) codex, an infantry squad paid just 8pts for a single BS3 plasma gun, but a stormtrooper squad paid 10 points for up to 2 BS4 plasma guns (replacing a better basic gun), veterans paid 15pts for up to three BS4 plasmaguns (accurate and spammable) and company command squads could take up to four BS3 plasmaguns (very spammable). Platoon command squads were a slight outlier, being able to take two weapons at the same price as infantry. Heavy weapons followed the same pattern- more accurate or more spammable units had higher costs for the same weapon (such as a lascannon being 30 pts in an anti-tank squad, 23pts for veterans, and 20pts elsewhere). Flamers were more expensive for veterans still, but I think this is due to the efficiency of multiple flamers despite the lower benefit for more accurate units.

This is not especially complicated to understand, and I should think a company with GW's resources should be able to playtest this adequately, they managed it when much smaller... Having said that, I prefer the slightly more complex method of increasing the cost per weapon for repeats within the same unit (as efficiency increases) rather than simply increasing the base cost and assuming all weapons will be the same as this is optimal.

Perfect balance is unachievable in a system as complicated as 40k, but it can be trended towards.

I don’t see how it would benefit the game. It would just make it easier to try different army list and feed the meta.

Maybe that’s what they want

 Haighus wrote:

The most frustrating part is the GW design team once understood this much better, but have trended towards dumbing down points since ~5th edition.

For example, in the Imperial Guard 3rd edition (1st) codex, an infantry squad paid just 8pts for a single BS3 plasma gun, but a stormtrooper squad paid 10 points for up to 2 BS4 plasma guns (replacing a better basic gun), veterans paid 15pts for up to three BS4 plasmaguns (accurate and spammable) and company command squads could take up to four BS3 plasmaguns (very spammable). Platoon command squads were a slight outlier, being able to take two weapons at the same price as infantry. Heavy weapons followed the same pattern- more accurate or more spammable units had higher costs for the same weapon (such as a lascannon being 30 pts in an anti-tank squad, 23pts for veterans, and 20pts elsewhere). Flamers were more expensive for veterans still, but I think this is due to the efficiency of multiple flamers despite the lower benefit for more accurate units.

This is not especially complicated to understand, and I should think a company with GW's resources should be able to playtest this adequately, they managed it when much smaller... Having said that, I prefer the slightly more complex method of increasing the cost per weapon for repeats within the same unit (as efficiency increases) rather than simply increasing the base cost and assuming all weapons will be the same as this is optimal.

Perfect balance is unachievable in a system as complicated as 40k, but it can be trended towards.

Yes. Pretty much this. the problem is GW is in full streamline mode, probably partially because it can restrict options and by extention limit 3rd party piggybacking needs partially because it lowers development time. Problem is there are points in a game system were it is better to have multiple handles and levers and this is just taking another lever out.

GW also until recently had with FW a company branch that far better understood their points system aswell. 6-7th weren't kind to horde units, f.e. however with IA13 and R&H they realeased a horde army and built in a type of discount for general boosts for that squad type by making Armor and training upgrades a flat cost, hence you could either proof your units on the moral front and take lower number squads or you could profit from flat upgrades better. It was a choice you had to make with no clear answer.

The problem though wasn't solely the equipment, in many ways the equipment (weapons or armor fwiw) could've had fixed prices IF the unit would've had a dynamic enough pricing structure as you brought up to catch up that better cost efficency. Albeit i think there would'be an even better alternatives if you added f.e.a "Veteran specialist" instead of just handing out a special weapon to a veteran which would've cost more and than added the cost of the special weapon and maybee started him out with the cheapest special weapon option for free subtracting it from the others, that would've been a better system, because if i see a unit that overperforms with certain specials or heavies i now have multiple avenues to handle that instead of flat increasing cost per model, i could've just increased the cost for special weapon vets by x ammount, or limited availability for the specialists in the worst case or if a weapon is just in general overperforming could've hiked there.

All gw achieves now is creating in essence a blindbox in which it will be difficult to find if it is overperforming weapons, or overperforming units with certain weapons, or weapon availability. In essence making it even worse to achieve a satisfying state of affairs.

Also in regards to veterans, especially melta veterans, basically it was deepstrike or infiltration all the time. the fact that the unit could buy it flat made f.e. meltas with also a flat cost and the unit itself being flat costed even more hillarious because you could compensate the only shortcoming the melta had which made it cheaper pts wise than plasma.

(hence why CSM suicide termy squads were a massive thing, because the combi meltas were too cheap and the unit could be taken in really small numbers / slot allowing for easy deepstrike and removal of units which costed far more points than that squad.)

Will they? Maybe. They've certainly been moving in that direction recently. And if they do, it'll be one more reason, on top of the already heaping pile of reasons, that make me happy that I dropped 40k and switched to HH. Anymore, I just keep up with what's happening in current 40k for the same reasons that some people slow down when they see a train wreck.

And a big second to everything that Not Online, H.B.M.C, Vict0988, and Haighus said.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Will they? Maybe. They've certainly been moving in that direction recently. And if they do, it'll be one more reason, on top of the already heaping pile of reasons, that make me happy that I dropped 40k and switched to HH. Anymore, I just keep up with what's happening in current 40k for the same reasons that some people slow down when they see a train wreck.

And a big second to everything that Not Online, H.B.M.C, Vict0988, and Haighus said.

TBF, HH also has issues with flat priced equipment, but atleast equipment is still priced meaning that they can go in and say increase cost for jumppacks on specifically praetors compared to centurions if it were the case that the praetors would just be overly efficent with it.

That said the support weapons squad volkite calvier vs the heavy support volkite calverin is still really heavily off in regards to the pricing chart. (unless the calvier was supposed to be an assault weapon like the volkite rifle, at which point i think i could live with the more expensive price on the support squad because it would make atleast some sense due to the mobility.)

mrFickle wrote:
I don’t see how it would benefit the game. It would just make it easier to try different army list and feed the meta.

Maybe that’s what they want

Removing a unit to afford more bling on your remaining units isn't that hard. Removing bling to add an extra unit isn't that hard. There would be no point to try an army list that is the exact same except you replace all your S4 weapons with S3 weapons.

Not Online!!! wrote:
GW also until recently had with FW a company branch that far better understood their points system aswell.

If anyone understood points worse than GW it was FW.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Will they? Maybe. They've certainly been moving in that direction recently. And if they do, it'll be one more reason, on top of the already heaping pile of reasons, that make me happy that I dropped 40k and switched to HH. Anymore, I just keep up with what's happening in current 40k for the same reasons that some people slow down when they see a train wreck.

The rumour mill says GW is removing Armour of Contempt in January, I want to believe 40k can be great again.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Will they? Maybe. They've certainly been moving in that direction recently. And if they do, it'll be one more reason, on top of the already heaping pile of reasons, that make me happy that I dropped 40k and switched to HH. Anymore, I just keep up with what's happening in current 40k for the same reasons that some people slow down when they see a train wreck.

And a big second to everything that Not Online, H.B.M.C, Vict0988, and Haighus said.

TBF, HH also has issues with flat priced equipment, but atleast equipment is still priced meaning that they can go in and say increase cost for jumppacks on specifically praetors compared to centurions if it were the case that the praetors would just be overly efficent with it.

That said the support weapons squad volkite calvier vs the heavy support volkite calverin is still really heavily off in regards to the pricing chart. (unless the calvier was supposed to be an assault weapon like the volkite rifle, at which point i think i could live with the more expensive price on the support squad because it would make atleast some sense due to the mobility.)

Yeah, I'm definitely not saying that HH is perfectly balanced, and it could use a bit of a balance pass on some things. But, they can actually do that, since optional equipment actually has a price. It's a lot harder to do that if everything is "free", as yourself and others have correctly pointed out.

Will they? No idea? Should they? No clue. Would I like if they did? Yes. I want more units to be "pick-up-and-playable" without too much thought over the minutia of their kit. Now, that does also mean I'd like the weapons to have a way that they're brought relatively into line with one another (chainswords getting more attacks to compare to power swords, heavy power weapons such as thunder hammers and powerfists having an increased drawback, or laspistols getting more shots compared to bolt pistols), but yes - I actually do like the idea of units choosing upgrades that are lateral.

vict0988 wrote:

Way easier for everyone to build models that look cool.

Unless you built your Sergeant with a chainsword then you're wrong and stupid for not giving him free bling.

Calling people "wrong and stupid" is a pretty sure fire way for me to lose sympathy for your position.

Chainswords are cool. All my guardsmen sergeants carry laspistol and chainsword, and I play PL. Are you calling me "wrong and stupid"?

One step closer to using PL instead of points. I'm all for it.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:Will they? No idea? Should they? No clue. Would I like if they did? Yes. I want more units to be "pick-up-and-playable" without too much thought over the minutia of their kit. Now, that does also mean I'd like the weapons to have a way that they're brought relatively into line with one another (chainswords getting more attacks to compare to power swords, heavy power weapons such as thunder hammers and powerfists having an increased drawback, or laspistols getting more shots compared to bolt pistols), but yes - I actually do like the idea of units choosing upgrades that are lateral.

vict0988 wrote:

Way easier for everyone to build models that look cool.

Unless you built your Sergeant with a chainsword then you're wrong and stupid for not giving him free bling.

Calling people "wrong and stupid" is a pretty sure fire way for me to lose sympathy for your position.

Chainswords are cool. All my guardsmen sergeants carry laspistol and chainsword, and I play PL. Are you calling me "wrong and stupid"?

jaredb wrote:One step closer to using PL instead of points. I'm all for it.

The thing is, PL already exists and you can already play it. Matched play should also continue to exist for those who want to play that.

I think GW's rules writers are becoming senile.

They're forgetting that they made points costs granular for a reason - it's a metric for game balance.

They're forgetting why they made some units wargear costs zero - the units and/or faction was under-performing, and this was a means to make it more viable.

Haighus wrote:The thing is, PL already exists and you can already play it. Matched play should also continue to exist for those who want to play that.

Actually, you know what, I'm swayed by that. As long as PL exists, I don't really have an opinion on what happens with points. Fair play to you!

As long as we can keep the whole "if you build your models with X you're wrong and stupid" or "PL is stupid and if you like it you shouldn't be playing any more" to a minimum, I'm happy.

However, I do still stand by that many weapon profiles could do with condensing - melee weapons and bolter variants, especially.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Haighus wrote:The thing is, PL already exists and you can already play it. Matched play should also continue to exist for those who want to play that.

Actually, you know what, I'm swayed by that. As long as PL exists, I don't really have an opinion on what happens with points. Fair play to you!

As long as we can keep the whole "if you build your models with X you're wrong and stupid" or "PL is stupid and if you like it you shouldn't be playing any more" to a minimum, I'm happy.

However, I do still stand by that many weapon profiles could do with condensing - melee weapons and bolter variants, especially.

I think that is entirely fair. The novelty of 6th edition power weapons wore off pretty sharpish.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Haighus wrote:The thing is, PL already exists and you can already play it. Matched play should also continue to exist for those who want to play that.

Actually, you know what, I'm swayed by that. As long as PL exists, I don't really have an opinion on what happens with points. Fair play to you!

As long as we can keep the whole "if you build your models with X you're wrong and stupid" or "PL is stupid and if you like it you shouldn't be playing any more" to a minimum, I'm happy.

However, I do still stand by that many weapon profiles could do with condensing - melee weapons and bolter variants, especially.

PL has inherent advantages and disadvantages. It's fast for one to design a list, it's however to some armies unfair if they lack equipment options otoh.

The problem is when points should be, arguably as seen even more granular. What gw does is not beneficial.

also Power weapons are ok compared to bolters that's at most what, 5? . Bolters on the other hand....Even 30k has LESS boltgun variations and entries across its factions than what 40k has let, that sink in for a moment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vict0988 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
GW also until recently had with FW a company branch that far better understood their points system aswell.

If anyone understood points worse than GW it was FW.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Will they? Maybe. They've certainly been moving in that direction recently. And if they do, it'll be one more reason, on top of the already heaping pile of reasons, that make me happy that I dropped 40k and switched to HH. Anymore, I just keep up with what's happening in current 40k for the same reasons that some people slow down when they see a train wreck.

The rumour mill says GW is removing Armour of Contempt in January, I want to believe 40k can be great again.

Proof that claim. And secondly considering the core rules of 9th especially the tanks are just monstrous creatures aspect and certain other issues. NVM small boards and Stratagems i seriously doubt that at the moment.