Grimtuff wrote:
Is this OP a metaphor for modern 40k? As it is devoid of content.

 Da Boss wrote:
My impression is that I'm in the vast minority about the 32mm bases to be fair!

 Blackie wrote:
I disagree about simplicity, in fact I think old codex were simpler. It's the single datasheets that are simpler but roster are may more complex or bloated with countless choices.

I mean an ork warboss can choose from very few options compared to previous codexes but there are several independent alternatives to that unit and each weapon has several amost identical alternatives. Buggies have 5 different profiles, planes have 4 different profiles, even battlewagons have 3 different profiles (4 if we include the FW one, which is in fact just a regular BW with a resin added cannon), etc... even regular bolters from SM armies have several varitations.

So overall, army wise, we have way more options than before and that's not even considering the chapters/klans/obsessions/etc bonuses.

In fact what I miss about older codexes is the lack of countless options. Less units/datasheets and weapons to chose from but maybe more options to customize a single datasheet.

I love the current rules, both generic core and army specific ones. I definitely prefer to customize my army by switching a few klan related rules, and thereforce the list's style of playing, rather than having the possibility of equipping my dudes with whatever I like. But I can't stand having 100+ datasheets and a thousand weapons, with tons of stuff that do the exact same thing but has tiny and insignificant variations to remember. Is this an emphasis on simplicity? It looks like the opposite.

 Blackie wrote:
Yes, you're right about that specific model but not all HQs have actually lost options. Take SM captains: there are countless versions of them now even if they're split into multiple datasheets. So overall possible combinations are in fact much higher than before.

Same with ork warbosses. They lost a few minor options but gained other things, and the split into multiple datasheets (warboss, warboss in megarmour, warboss on bike, beast boss) gave them more special rules to choose from as well.

Relics are also additional items to customize the HQs and they didn't exist in 3rd-5th.

 Blackie wrote:
Yes, you're right about that specific model but not all HQs have actually lost options. Take SM captains: there are countless versions of them now even if they're split into multiple datasheets. So overall possible combinations are in fact much higher than before.

Same with ork warbosses. They lost a few minor options but gained other things, and the split into multiple datasheets (warboss, warboss in megarmour, warboss on bike, beast boss) gave them more special rules to choose from as well.

Relics are also additional items to customize the HQs and they didn't exist in 3rd-5th.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Yes, you're right about that specific model but not all HQs have actually lost options. Take SM captains: there are countless versions of them now even if they're split into multiple datasheets. So overall possible combinations are in fact much higher than before.

Same with ork warbosses. They lost a few minor options but gained other things, and the split into multiple datasheets (warboss, warboss in megarmour, warboss on bike, beast boss) gave them more special rules to choose from as well.

Relics are also additional items to customize the HQs and they didn't exist in 3rd-5th.

So if we take all the optional boltgun types and distill them down to "boltgun"*, how many new SM captain options are there relative to, say, the 4th edition codex?

*I am unconcerned with the difference between an Auto Bolt Stubber, a Bolt Auto Stubber, a Heavy Stubber Bolt Auto, a Fragstorm Bolt Auto Stubber, a Icarus-Pattern AutoStubber Bolter, or a StubberStalker Bolt Stalk Auto Rifle

 the_scotsman wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Yes, you're right about that specific model but not all HQs have actually lost options. Take SM captains: there are countless versions of them now even if they're split into multiple datasheets. So overall possible combinations are in fact much higher than before.

Same with ork warbosses. They lost a few minor options but gained other things, and the split into multiple datasheets (warboss, warboss in megarmour, warboss on bike, beast boss) gave them more special rules to choose from as well.

Relics are also additional items to customize the HQs and they didn't exist in 3rd-5th.

So if we take all the optional boltgun types and distill them down to "boltgun"*, how many new SM captain options are there relative to, say, the 4th edition codex?

*I am unconcerned with the difference between an Auto Bolt Stubber, a Bolt Auto Stubber, a Heavy Stubber Bolt Auto, a Fragstorm Bolt Auto Stubber, a Icarus-Pattern AutoStubber Bolter, or a StubberStalker Bolt Stalk Auto Rifle

Um... a fething gak ton. Like you've basically got everything that you had before (bolt pistol/plasma pistol/thunder hammer/lightning claws/power weapon (now 3, but I assume we're discounting that for the same reason we dont care about different bolters) combiweapon/powerfist/relic blade, plus Terminator Armor/Power Armor/Jump pack/bike, but now you also have

-effectively Scout Armor captain, which unlocks a sniper rifle weapon
-new Tough Fat Boy armor captain with a powerfist+power sword or Heavy Bolter
-hand flamer, melta pistol, grav weaponry
-deathwatch get a special invuln-ignoring power sword
-space wolves get a captain on a wolf

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

So the actual new ones are:
Captain in scout armor
Terminator with heavy bolter in addition to other weapons
some stuff for the special snowflake chapters


nice. So if I went back to 4th and put "Heavy Bolter (Captain in Terminator Armor only)" and "Scout Armor" on the Armory list. I'd've captured everything new that's available.

 Da Boss wrote:
The game being balanced for tournaments is good for tournament players and no skin off the noses of casual or narrative players.

 catbarf wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
The game being balanced for tournaments is good for tournament players and no skin off the noses of casual or narrative players.

As time goes on, I become much less convinced of this. It certainly was a kick in the teeth for casual play when Genestealers got a points hike, because tournament players were successfully using them as Kraken plus the Swarmlord's double-movement ability to make turn 1 charges. Their points cost was adjusted around a very specific combo that showed up in tournament play but couldn't be done if you weren't playing a specific subfaction and taking a specific special character.

Or take Tau, which got balanced in 8th around the tournament success of triple Riptides and a sea of shield drones, with the result being a completely dysfunctional army for casual play.

Tournament players look at a codex with 80% brokenly bad units and 20% that can be exploited via specific combos to punch above their weight and give it the thumbs-up. That's not particularly satisfying for casual players. There are different expectations and different goals for balance between the two groups.

I like the direction GW has been moving with rebalancing armies in 9th, but it feels to me like a more holistic approach than just balancing for tournament results.

 Gert wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

So the actual new ones are:
Captain in scout armor
Terminator with heavy bolter in addition to other weapons
some stuff for the special snowflake chapters


nice. So if I went back to 4th and put "Heavy Bolter (Captain in Terminator Armor only)" and "Scout Armor" on the Armory list. I'd've captured everything new that's available.

If you want to simplify it to nonsense then yes. In reality, it isn't the case. Phobos isn't Scout Armour, Gravis isn't Terminator armour. They both fill different roles. Same with Intercessors and Tactical Marines, neither do the other's job because they aren't the same unit.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Right right yes, I forgot. Just like how the Armored Fist squads of the Armageddon Steel Legion (in heavy coats and gas masks) and the Shock Troop squads of the Cadian Imperial Guard (with heavy flak plate armor with no mask) fill totally different roles and therefore couldn't possibly be the same unit entr-

Oops.

 Gert wrote:
...A Captain with Scout or Terminator Armour is different to a Primaris Captain in Phobos or Gravis Armour...

 catbarf wrote:

Tournament players look at a codex with 80% brokenly bad units and 20% that can be exploited via specific combos to punch above their weight and give it the thumbs-up.

 Void__Dragon wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Why?

No, seriously. Why? Mk.II-VIII power armour all has identical stats, why does Mk.X power armour need different stats? Ultima boltguns and Phobos boltguns are the same, Mars-pattern and Deimos-pattern Rhinos are the same, what would you lose by making Gravis armour "a pattern of Terminator armour" other than arbitrary stat numbers? Do they fill different roles in the army somehow?

If you want to complain about how you're big mad about change bad feel free to do so, but you thinking that these profiles shouldn't be different doesn't change the fact that they are which is Gert's actual point.

 Gert wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Right right yes, I forgot. Just like how the Armored Fist squads of the Armageddon Steel Legion (in heavy coats and gas masks) and the Shock Troop squads of the Cadian Imperial Guard (with heavy flak plate armor with no mask) fill totally different roles and therefore couldn't possibly be the same unit entr-

Oops.

I mean a Cadian Squad in a Chimera and a Steel Legion Squad in a Chimer are the same thing since they both use the Guardsmen and Chimera unit profiles. A Captain with Scout or Terminator Armour is different to a Primaris Captain in Phobos or Gravis Armour. It's OK you can just say you hate Primaris and this discussion can be over.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Why?

No, seriously. Why? Mk.II-VIII power armour all has identical stats, why does Mk.X power armour need different stats? Ultima boltguns and Phobos boltguns are the same, Mars-pattern and Deimos-pattern Rhinos are the same, what would you lose by making Gravis armour "a pattern of Terminator armour" other than arbitrary stat numbers? Do they fill different roles in the army somehow?

 Gert wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Why?

No, seriously. Why? Mk.II-VIII power armour all has identical stats, why does Mk.X power armour need different stats? Ultima boltguns and Phobos boltguns are the same, Mars-pattern and Deimos-pattern Rhinos are the same, what would you lose by making Gravis armour "a pattern of Terminator armour" other than arbitrary stat numbers? Do they fill different roles in the army somehow?

Because it's different? Gravis is Power Armour, Terminator Armour is Terminator Armour. Gravis gives a Toughness and Wound buff but is still a 3+ save. Terminator Armour gives a 2+ Armour Save, a 5+ Invlun
Why does Carapace Armour need different stats to Flak Armour, it all looks the same. How about Dreadnoughts? They all look the same and use the same chassis, so why does there need to be 3 profiles? Could it be that despite similar appearances they do different things and have different rules?

Also, you do realise that in 40k it was only in 9th Edition that different patterns of Terminator Armour stopped giving different benefits right? And that it's still a thing in 30k?
I get loads of you still get angry when you see a Primaris but honestly its just sad at this point.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I am not angry at GW. I am angry at my subjective assessment (Phobos is scoutish and Gravis is terminator ish) being declared as "nonsense" because they are OH SO CLEARLY different (apparently in background).

 Gert wrote:
Because it's different? Gravis is Power Armour, Terminator Armour is Terminator Armour. Gravis gives a Toughness and Wound buff but is still a 3+ save. Terminator Armour gives a 2+ Armour Save, a 5+ Invlun

 catbarf wrote:
If your answer to every 'why are X and Y the same on the tabletop, but A and B are different' is going to be 'because GW decided X and Y are the same on the tabletop, but A and B are different', then you can just stop posting and save yourself the effort of typing out the same tautologies.

 Gert wrote:
Since it's subjective I can disagree and call it nonsense. Gravis Armour is similar to Terminator Armour in that it is big. That's it. Gravis Armour has a Power Pack, Terminator Armour does not. Gravis Armour is specifically a variation of Mk.X Armour, Terminator Armour is its own thing. Terminator Armour includes a built-in Refractor Field, Gravis Armor does not. You've taken one aspect (size) and decided that it should be the deciding factor in rules.

 Gert wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
If your answer to every 'why are X and Y the same on the tabletop, but A and B are different' is going to be 'because GW decided X and Y are the same on the tabletop, but A and B are different', then you can just stop posting and save yourself the effort of typing out the same tautologies.

Tell it to the people who get annoyed at multiple weapon profiles every second Tuesday.

 catbarf wrote:
-Gravis is different from Terminator armor in the background, and GW decided to give them different rules, so they deserve to have different rules.

 Gert wrote:
No, they have the same equipment. Lasguns and Flak Armour.

 Gert wrote:
The point being what exactly? That you think Gravis Armour should be Terminator Armour because its big?

 catbarf wrote:
As time goes on, I become much less convinced of this. It certainly was a kick in the teeth for casual play when Genestealers got a points hike, because tournament players were successfully using them as Kraken plus the Swarmlord's double-movement ability to make turn 1 charges. Their points cost was adjusted around a very specific combo that showed up in tournament play but couldn't be done if you weren't playing a specific subfaction and taking a specific special character.

Or take Tau, which got balanced in 8th around the tournament success of triple Riptides and a sea of shield drones, with the result being a completely dysfunctional army for casual play.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
As time goes on, I become much less convinced of this. It certainly was a kick in the teeth for casual play when Genestealers got a points hike, because tournament players were successfully using them as Kraken plus the Swarmlord's double-movement ability to make turn 1 charges. Their points cost was adjusted around a very specific combo that showed up in tournament play but couldn't be done if you weren't playing a specific subfaction and taking a specific special character.

Or take Tau, which got balanced in 8th around the tournament success of triple Riptides and a sea of shield drones, with the result being a completely dysfunctional army for casual play.

That sounds like less a problem with tournament play balancing (or over-balancing) casual play, and more like GW's inability to get things right.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Then you fix the cause of problem. You don't increase the cost of the unit people are using to make the best use of the combination. That just makes the unit useless everywhere else except that specific combo, further incentivising the combo that you're trying to fix!

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Gert wrote:
...A Captain with Scout or Terminator Armour is different to a Primaris Captain in Phobos or Gravis Armour...

Why?

No, seriously. Why? Mk.II-VIII power armour all has identical stats, why does Mk.X power armour need different stats? Ultima boltguns and Phobos boltguns are the same, Mars-pattern and Deimos-pattern Rhinos are the same, what would you lose by making Gravis armour "a pattern of Terminator armour" other than arbitrary stat numbers? Do they fill different roles in the army somehow?

Jarms48 wrote:
Why do we need a different datasheet for each Predator variant? When we can just put them into a single datasheet like the Hellhound or Leman Russ. Is it to allow for rule of 3? If so, why not combine them and add the vehicle squadron rules Hellhounds and Leman Russes have?

There's just so much datasheet bloat in the marine codex.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
...I don't understand what Rule of 3 is even meant to do in this game...

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Restrict the spamming of DPs/Flyrants/Shield-Captains/Tau Commanders. (I won't say it worked, just that that was what it was originally for.)

 Da Boss wrote:
My impression is that I'm in the vast minority about the 32mm bases to be fair!

 catbarf wrote:

 Gert wrote:
No, they have the same equipment. Lasguns and Flak Armour.

In the rules, yes. In the background, no.

In the background, Cadians are equipped with helmets, chest plates, shoulder pads, and greaves with some of the most advanced materials science in the Imperium. Their lasguns are optimized for long-range fire and are fully-automatic with a high rate of fire.

Steel Legionaries are equipped with steel helmets and that's it for protection, but they have closed-cycle respirator systems to fight through gas and smoke. Their lascarbines are powerful, semi-auto weapons designed to blow chunks out of Orks at close range.

Meanwhile Catachans have literal t-shirts- no flak armor at all- while Vostroyans have carapace armor and long-range, high-power lasguns passed down from generation to generation.

All of these have the same stats on the table despite massive differences in the background.

Once again you're quoting lore differences to justify rules differences for Marines, but rules equivalence to downplay lore differences for Guard.

 AngryAngel80 wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
My impression is that I'm in the vast minority about the 32mm bases to be fair!

I'm actually with you on the scale creep, I personally don't like it. It really makes it all take up more space, which is an issue with a large collection and for me I don't think it adds anything. I also didn't rebase my guys though so there is that. I just have one force that uses all the updated base sizes and my larger collection does not. In the end of the day all the bloat and creep and direction has made me have to take it way more casual than I used to. I just don't have the care to stay on the edge, costs way too much and takes way too much time. I'm just in it have what fun I can at this point.

 Gnarlly wrote:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
My impression is that I'm in the vast minority about the 32mm bases to be fair!

I'm actually with you on the scale creep, I personally don't like it. It really makes it all take up more space, which is an issue with a large collection and for me I don't think it adds anything. I also didn't rebase my guys though so there is that. I just have one force that uses all the updated base sizes and my larger collection does not. In the end of the day all the bloat and creep and direction has made me have to take it way more casual than I used to. I just don't have the care to stay on the edge, costs way too much and takes way too much time. I'm just in it have what fun I can at this point.

Same here. My Necrons, Orks, and most of my Space Marines are still on older 25mm bases (some heroes and terminators on larger bases). They still look fine to me, fit more easily into my older storage cases, and don't impact the casual games I play. But then I started at a time when the only 40k bases sizes were 25mm rounds, 25mmx50mm rectangular (cavalry/bikes), and 40mm (squares!).