Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
Just wondering if you feel 40k is becoming far to dependant on '2 state' results.
(All black or white , no shades of grey.)
And as such units are becoming more specialised in thier function.
Is this leading to force composition heavily dictating the way the games play out?
Other rule sets use simple comparisons to get more graduated results, and so units can be utilised in a variety of roles.
This leads to less specialised unit roles and more diversity in the resulting game play
Do you think 40k would benifit from more in game choices , units able to perform multiple roles ?
A quote from a 40k tounament player I know...
'In 40k assaulty units assult, shooty units shoot, units that can do both are too expensive!.'
Whart do you think folks?
While I see and share your "2 state" sentiment regarding WH40k, I believe that it's just a fact of a game that's based off of "balance" in regards to completely different units. When measuring the degrees of strengths vs. short-comings, dual use units just become more expensive by default. For "competitive" there will always be units that no one will seriously consider in lieu of "math-hammered"-proven units, but for play against friends in your local hobby shop or w/e, people shouldn't be afraid to utilize these "undesirables." So long as the various units are unique in flavor, I have no qualms with the game becoming more black and white as far as the rules are concerned.... As fun as 2nd ed. was, I'm glad I don't have to play legal-hammer anymore....
Oh, and the problem with giving units multiple role choices is lack of diversity in armies, as far as I can tell. people would simply find the best way to equip the best unit type and it would be more of the same (as far as competitiveness is concerned). Also, having all/most of the units with dual functionality would create all kinds of oddities with special rules and point values assigned to them. It would be doable, but probably much harder to keep tabs on. Even so, the current codex make ups already present the duality, but just do it in terms of these completely different units. ie. howling banshee's ARE just a melee focused Dire Avenger, the choice is just tweaked to make it more interesting and flavorful from others. If people can't see the similarity in ALL units in a given army, then GW is doing its job as well as it can. + CC dire avengers would be boring and take away from the fluff.
Last edited by abbazabba1920; April 8th, 2009 at 01:04. Reason: forgot to add a point
It's less about making things more interesting by adding variety, it's more about selling more sets of models.
Ogryns have a different purpose from Storm Troopers or whatever (the dudes with the awesome guns (hellguns?), it has been a long while since I payed attention to anything in 40k that doesn't have treads) and look drastically different. They also both look ALOT different from the standard IG trooper. The more different types of models you have the more people will buy, and you make ALOT more profits off of making people pay more money for a few specialized squads than for your standard units, but you make up for that by forcing them to take alot of the standard unit.
When the game started people cared about the fans because they themselves played the game. GW went Corporate and gradually fired off/had employees leave, they now have pressure from their stock holders and the company's management to make MONEY, not to make people happy/make things interesting/have fun.
A youth with his first cigar makes himself sick; a youth with his first girl makes other people sick. - Mary Wilson Little
I agree with the posts here, but I also gotta add that seeking a "balanced" army means a diversity of models. To go to the flip side of the issue, you CAN, for example, take a vanilla Space Marines commander, and, say, six tactical squads, all with flamer and missile launcher. This maximizes the "versatility" of the individual units, but the army as a WHOLE has no real direction, no plan. Instead, it entirely depends on how the game unfolds. You are forced to react to your opponent, while Sun Tzu and other strategic masters argue that you should be doing the exact opposite.
Further, you can tool up your units to perform as many possible functions as you like, but there's really only ONE thing they can do per turn. Load 'em up with too much gear and you can guarantee they'll be wasting SOME of it every turn. Why spend the points on something you won't use?
Finally, from a purely aesthetic/modeling perspective, who WANTS to build an army like that? Where's the fun? Personally, I LIKE making different units with different weapons, even (if you play Eldar) different color schemes associated with different functions.
Yes, there should be SOME "general purpose" units in any army, but too many and your army loses cohesion. Too few and yes, the army does become too polarized.
In short, mix it up. There's no fun otherwise. Not for me, anyway.
IMO no, the codices have just as much grey as they always did, but the specialists are becoming a little more specialised (which gives them a huge bonus when they do what they do, but they get gimped if they aren't performing their role).
In fact, units that do a bit of everything are in very high demand, hence why marines remain pretty much the best troop choice in existance (and why rhino rush of old worked so wonderfully - even with the old assaulting out of transport rules).
As much as the internet (and LO to a degree) like to spout on about how the game is nothing but army lists, this hasn't been true for a very long time. People like to specialsie their units as it inherently breeds efficiency - but you need a godo army wide spread of units to have a working force. Not to mention a specialised will more often than not have tons of weak links in the chain if one knows how to apply pressure at the right point.
I dont think I made my point that well.What I meant was in a game were there are set specific limited functions.
Close Combat Assaults
Then the amount of units that have value in these specific functions become polorised.
So you have to pick sets of each 'specialised type' of unit to exell in any given area, and units that are mediocre in 2 functions to allow some level of redundancy.
If the game allowed more functions by graduating results , more unit function would allow grester amounts of units to have multiple functions.
Things like supression, distraction, re-direction ,command and control issues , are all part and parcel of some other wargames I play.
(No these rules sets are not as complicated as the current 40k rules.)