Should Wargear Points Costs RETURN to Warhammer 40K? Some Pros + Cons

[@grifferman]

An admittedly insignificant problem with the free wargear I've experienced in playing against my friend's Death Guard is that their shooting phase invariably takes a long time as each unit of Plague Marines has about six different weapons to fire

[@JeffreyBenjaminWhite]

play smaller games

[@BarokaiRein]

That's not a problem with game size. That's an issue with chaos rules. Death guard and csm codexes are absolutely full of '1 in squad can have this, 2 can have that' rules, and all the replacements are infinitely better than the default weapon. 5-man squad of chaos termies can have 4 different melee profiles.

[@piotrjeske4599]

​@TheMarcosvoltahe is right though the problem of a units having multiple singelton option. Ain't just shoting too , melee for some armies is just as bad. And that is for line units.

[@loganparry2676]

As a death guard player I can confirm, the amount of weapon options A. makes bolters useless and B. makes my shooting take forever. Especially once I start losing models in the squad because now I have to remember if I pulled my meltas, plasma, belcher, spewer, etc etc. where in other editions I would just be like "okay and a bolter is gone"

[@JeffreyBenjaminWhite]

​@TheMarcosvolta actually, no - I understood completely. I played 2nd ed, third, fourth, fifth, I understand units with different gear taking longer to resolve combats. The only way to shorten game length in such a case is to lower points used and play smaller games. Unless you want to wait until 12th ed, or 15th, when the rules finally appeal to you. Now, your lack of charity and goodwill is a reflection of your poor upbringing and lack of manners. Your parent must be so proud, that you can type at all. Biological waste is more polite.

[@Brother_Rony]

I find it funny that gw has free wargear and then there is the new knight christmas box where you get a knight with the missile launcher/autocannon counted in the points cost but it just aint in the box

[@yhormthemidget]

not that deep tbh, they are clearing the unsold old knight kits I guess.

[@mrbodanglez9431]

​@@yhormthemidget if they were selling unsold stock it would be the full kits still you goober

[@yhormthemidget]

@mrbodanglez9431 the old knight box did not have the extra bits. Only the updated one has every questoris chassis option.

[@richardwales9674]

They could have dropped the extra sprue in if they'd wanted. So what if it's old stock, have a production run on the extra sprue. They just want to sell the box and another knight.

[@Brother_Rony]

​@@yhormthemidget That knight stopped being sold over 2 years ago. The last box (before this one not sure if it was a battleforce or christmas one) was made out of the same minis yet had the new kit

[@lorenzosgarallino]

the problem is that at the start of 10th they just used the more costy profile, instead of striking a balance. they also tried to give each weapon cost and benefits within their own profile, the problem here is that some profiles are more efficient vs certain targets and you end up chosing them. another piece of the puzzle is the rules changes: devastating wounds weapons were very hot with oath of moment rerolling wounds. now they are niece uses.

[@DeathInTheSnow]

Not only that, but they gave certain units very specific rules that only benefitted one profile. For example, Chaos Legionaries were given "Veterans of the Long War" as an ability, which allowed them to reroll melee wounds of 1 when in engagement range, or all melee wounds if by an objective. So why would they take their expensive special and heavy weapons when they would prefer their chainswords? This is especially damning, as the swords could be exchanged _for free_ in past editions, while the shooting weapons cost extra points, which are now rolled into their profile. And to make things worse, if they lower the points to counter this, it now makes their melee too cheap, which is what happened at the beginning of the edition with Chosen. In short, there was a reason all of the previous editions had separate upgrades and points values. It wasn't just for the fluff or RPG elements - it is a defined balance and gameplay metric.

[@silverblack110]

If they cost the unit based on the best weapon, then it's overcosted. If they don't, it's broken and undercoated. Not having loadouts makes sense if the game was made for it. But warhammer simple isn't, warhammer has always had weapon choices. If there is only one choice that is better than the rest, or if you make each weapon the same with slight differences, then you have no real choices. 10th feels like they wanted every unit to be one, same profile. Yet, they kept the weapon options from last edition. You can't have your cake and eat it too when it comes to weapon profiles. Some are just better than others, or have niche roles that make them worst to take in most games.

[@DeathInTheSnow]

@@silverblack110 I think you hit the nail on the head. GW just want Warhammer to be made up of single, monopose, mono-profile units. Chess, but with much more expensive pieces. I don't know why exactly, but the cynicism in me leads me to believe that it's to either sell the game to the lowest common denominator, or it's to sell each unit multiple times over. Or both. Think: Intercessors, vs. Assault Intercessors. But now with a different kit for Assault Intercessors with power weapons, and then another, separate, kit with Thunder Hammers. Or another one for Intercessors with just flamers. They're effectively upgrade sprues, but you can't buy those sprues on their own. Each one has just one profile in the codex, and they rotate which ones are effective with every balance update. And no, they don't sell individual models in blister packs like they used to.

[@silverblack110]

@DeathInTheSnow "you will buy rebuy your army every 2 years and will be happy with this" I don't disagree on some fundamental level, that having a few units that specialize in something good. Gravis units generally are fine imo. But regular intercessors... They should be folded into a different box later. If they could do a Tactical squad box but with intercessors, I think people would be happy. But the amount of "speciality" or "mono purpose" kits just keeps accumulating. Soon enough, they will need to purge the space Marines again just to release something new each year. It's worrying to think about... I think the real solution is just to play an edition you and your buddies like (2nd, 9th, etc). And not worry about buying into the new edition just for the same, slightly nicer models

[@TheGeneralSkye]

@@DeathInTheSnow even funnier, index crisis suits had an ability to auto-advance 6" but none of their weapons had the Assault keyword, so surprise surprise they were always lead by the commander who gave them assault...

[@hansw15]

I think the Leman Russ really showcases the problem of having all wargear be included really well. Comparing between 9th and 10th edition, a Leman Russ in 9th edition with a las-cannon and 2 Multi Meltas was 185 points, add on on a Heavy Stubber and Hunter killer for 5 each and it's 195. The same Leman Russ with just the Las-cannon was 155 points. Now it feels like my old 165 Point Leman Russ with 3 heavy bolters is penalised for not having 2 plasma cannons, a Hunter Killer missile and heavy stubber. Its even worse for my Tank Commander which I built barebones as his purpose was to sit behind the frontlines and occasionally fire the main gun, so I gave him no extra weapons to keep the cost at 160 points. The Leman Russ and the Tank Commander in the move to 10th edition was costed as though it has every upgraded, including the no longer existing Dozer Blade and Armoured Tracks upgrade at 5 points each, and this was for an edition where they shot ar BS 3+ with the turret weapon, making them a great deal more dangerous.

[@leesickler3249]

Going back to 3rd (where I had last played before my friend drug me back in) you could fire Ordinance (battle cannon)- only if stationary- but nothing else OR the other weapons. So mine have a lascannon for firing on the move and anti tank, and the battle cannon was for anti infantry/lighter vehicles. No sponsons at all (split fire wasn't a thing) and I don't know if the basic LR could even have plasma or melta sponsons... I'm playing other armies until 11th before I horse around and model those sponson weapons on...

[@leesickler3249]

@TheMarcosvolta Somebody got a thesaurus for their birthday- congrats little fella!

[@sjones1378]

As someone who joined in 10th ed you going through the history of this issue and how prior editions did it was very helpful for understanding the nuance of the situation. Having only known 10th ed my biggest complaint is that generic characters that I can build stories around and avoid the constraints of pre-existing lore that surround named characters just don't feel like I can customized to make them competitive with the named characters. While I'll never chase the meta, it does feel kinda bad when some named characters feel necessary or vital to a list.

[@alexbaker9578]

Just make your own character with a loadout the same as the named character. A lot of Guard players do that with Leontus.

[@necromancerprawn5588]

As a fellow newcomer but who has somewhat followed the game for a while, I feel like free wargear isn’t so much the problem as the removal of additional levels of army/character customization like Relics or Faction Armories.

[@Darthlicious]

You're looking for warlord traits and relics from previous editions. I'm hoping they come back

[@greg_mca]

You should give crusade mode a go. You can mod out near everything with time and sufficient xp and your characters can get seriously dangerous, such as my T7 8W terminator captain with a 4+ fnp who heals every round and wounds basically everything in the game on 4s or better in melee with sustained hits. I even created a terminator Lt character that does 5 damage per hit in melee, and he got like 8 attacks with those

[@michaelgwartney2672]

@TheMarcosvolta Yeah there's rules for what they are looking for. It's called every edition of 40k until this shitty 10th edition came out. People have a right to complain and look in retrospect at things they miss from old editions. 10th isn't a sacred cow. It isn't flawless and people can critique as much or as little as they like so stop trying to be the thought police.

[@gamemasterbob9]

As a new player this edition i was glad they weren't there. But now that ive got the hang of things i understand why people have been asking for them back

[@TauEnjoyer]

i was learning how to play during 9th, then when 10th came i was happy they were gone because they made the game so complex, but at the same time, once you got the hang of using an army builder app, it made the process so easy.. now i miss points so bad

[@peters6345]

It was a lot of fun in list building in my opinion. Balancing, relics warlord traits, wargear a powers. 9th edition had problems but some parts were fun

[@cristhianmlr]

Why?

[@gamemasterbob9]

@cristhianmlr 2 main reasons, 1 being that im frequently 5 points short or over 2000, and being able to change a weapon to get that number even would be nice. 2 is that there are a lot of units that get balanced based on one weapon loadout, and the others become useless for their cost. When a unit gets a points hike because their plasma guns are too good, it would be nice if I could maybe still run their bolt guns for cheaper

[@TauEnjoyer]

@@peters6345 relics + prototype weapons for my Tau were so cool.. now we have nothing in 10th..

[@equos5060]

Current point values are basically Power Levels with extra steps.

[@nickellison2785]

ngl I don't dislike power levels, when properly balanced they could make a gamemode like combat patrol which is a lot more simple, and a more complex competitive mode for tournaments with weapon points values

[@keyanklupacs6333]

​@TheMarcosvoltayes you pay more for the good thing or get more guys. Its what we refer to as a "trade off."

[@lawaern3474]

That's a funny way to spell zeroes.

[@KamilDrakari]

I think they could get a lot of the benefits of wargear points back with a pretty small change. They already have a handful of units that have a "+X points for a special model" option like outriders and the ATV. There are plenty of the cons here that could be improved with just "+X points per special weapon" or "+X points for sponsons". That said, a lot of the complaints seem like they could be addressed by just making most bolters stronger so they might actually be picked over another option.

[@Nazdreg1]

Exactly. However, they need to rebalance some options too like wraithknight who has one loadout that is so much better than the others.

[@kriscrossx122]

Yes, because units should be dynamic and allowed options. If everything costs the same, everyone will always just pick the strongest wargear, which limits army building. When you could take weaker gear and more units prior and leverage the strengths of a list in different ways.

[@phantauss13]

As a mainly narrative/fun player, I deeply miss the flavor that old editions brought. Being able to individually kit out your dudes was fun. I hope they could at least bring back per-model costs for some units.

[@BlackSheep729]

end of 9th was amazing for that and nearly perfectly balanced. shame we had it only for 6months and greed kicked in.

[@attemptedunkindness3632]

@@BlackSheep729 Right!? 9th Brought me back in. But since I hail from Raid on Kastorel Novem all of my Ork HQs are FW, and guess what 10th Ed. took out back and Legended?

[@lawaern3474]

I mean, you still can kit out your dudes. In some cases it's even easier to do so. It's just that there is far less debate on the best option now. Giving your guardsmen all lasguns because the Administratum decided to send you a baneblade instead of lascannons is just needlessly weakening your army.

[@koenvandiepen7651]

Well you can still individualise some models. But it just makes no sense in game to do so.

[@arronfaulkner54]

Points per model and wargear is one of the biggest things that kept me away from 40k till tenth came and kept me to only sigmar

[@zachdrake8564]

Wargear points should come back. Personally a lot of fun with Warhammer is the list building and I find 10ths list building incredibly frustrating because there’s no way to just slap an extra 5-10 points in your list or remove those 5-10 points. And being punished for not picking the most competitively viable loadout for every unit, even in less competitive environments, sucks.

[@doctordoubledakka3939]

Its crazy to have tons of war gear at different points, but a lascannon is just more valuable than a heavy bolter. It be nice of some wargear was balanced for free, and one or 2 pieces were stronger and cost 5 or 10 points more. Also not being able to add models 1 at a time, instead of paying for minimum or max is really painful

[@Cross_Malaki]

That last point is a real sticking point for me, as a T'au player, because I used to run 4 suits in my crisis teams because I only have 8 suits. Now that I have to run 3 with no option for more, two of my suits just sit there doing nothing, dragging me even further away from having a full 2000 point army. My only option is to go out and buy models, which I can't do because I'm poor.

[@Paladin327]

Back in 9th, i would run a list with two 5 man units of bladeguard because dropping the 6th from both squads, plus points left over, let me take another squad of assault intercessors that i could use for actions. Now that’s not possible

[@SGWeber]

Idk for other armies, but in 5th edition space marines had exactly this system. Flamers, missile launchers, and heavy bolters were free for tactical squads, then everything else cost more.

[@chrismoody3605]

Yes and custom squad sizes.

[@matthewlopez1679]

squad sizes are what i want back,

[@schwegburt3002]

Amen. I like 10th a lot overall. But gear costs and custom squad sizes are the worst parts of 10th. I hate having 30-40 pts but being unable to shuffle anything around.

[@MrWiwl]

The squad sizes are gone because people bent the rules to avoid losing secondary points. If people didn't game the system to the nth degree we might get this back but it's there to stop people taking the piss.

[@CTimmerman]

@@MrWiwl Why do you need an entire squad worth of points to babysit an objective when one model is enough?

[@MrWiwl]

@@CTimmerman Funnily enough thats why sticky objectives exists and is on battleline units....

[@Toffeehammer]

The kits simply aren't designed for wargear to all be free is the thing. They're never going to be able to make a chainsword equal value to a thunder hammer or a shardcarbine equal to a dark lance etc. With the rules as they are there are so many options that have just been made completely pointless. I know GW wants to make balancing the game easier for themselves but this ain't the way. I'm hoping some kind of middle ground can be found but I feel like this is probably so much less work for the rules designers that they're just going to double down on it.

[@lunettesfumees1312]

The only army i (Really) know that has melee weapons options all have the same value are Grey Knight, and they solved it by removing them all

[@bombkangaroo]

I think there's a middle ground people are overlooking. I don't think a Chainsword needs to be considered of "equal value" to a Thunder Hammer, likewise Flamers Vs Plasma guns, or Heavy Bolters vs Lascannons. They have different target-profiles, so the relative cost of the weapon isn't relevant to players' decision-making. If I want to hunt tanks I'm taking the Lascannon every time, and if they cost different amounts then I'll find the points for it. I really think there are loadouts that you just will never see on a given unit. Nobody will ever run, or ever has I suspect, four Heavy Bolters in a Devastator squad; there's just too much good anti-infantry firepower spread across the rest of the army to skew the unit in that direction. The other weapons, like Multi-Meltas, work arguably better than Lascannons, but only if you have a Transport, or Deep Strike, or a certain Detachment rule, etc, and all of those things have a price tag attached already. I think the answer is to do away with baseline special rules for every unit, since they often incentivise certain builds anyway, and to expand the system of Enhancements, and add tiered points costs which unlock better wargear, as a way to further customise units but without needing to split up Datasheets.

[@hellsong23]

I dunno, I avoid hammers because of the lower WS (my rolling sucks hahah.)

[@LinkiePup]

You know how you ballance more powerful options without rewriting the rules every 3 months?? _Points cost._

[@CanonessEllinor]

That’s the real issue, isn’t it? 10th edition is transplanting the AoS army building system onto 40k, but 40k models weren’t designed for that system. AoS models largely don’t have wargear options (or if they do, the option is considered an alternate unit), but pretty much every 40k model outside of the most generic primaris DOES. Hell, at the start of 10th, GW gave NEW weapon options to termagants, a grunt unit that in AoS would certainly only have one weapon option.

[@priestking8636]

I love how jackals from gsc have wargear "options" between 1 shot bolt pistol AND HANDFLAMERS (pistol autohitting free overwatch D6 shots weapon)

[@neilkirkley1500]

Yes, cool didn't even need to wait for the pre roll ad to finish!

[@sirhigglesworth]

10th edition datasheets with 9th edition points, faction rules (and subfaction rules), and 10th edition core abilites and stratagems (because i’d rather not flip through four pages of stratagems just to find out if i can magically muscle button my way through an enemy unit for a command point) would be an amazing version of the game.

[@keyanklupacs6333]

Yep 9e subfactions were great because the benefits were much more general. 10e forces you to slant too hard and you're eternally feeling like you wished your rules applied to more things.

[@svenmeling6053]

My main gripe with no costs for wargear is how it creates an illusion of choice. For instance, there is never a reason to not take Plasma Guns on Astra Militarum Cadian Shock Troops, since they are by far the overall most powerful choice. I use a couple of Field Ordnance Battery in my list. Early in 10th edition, these were nerfed in points from 100 to 120 as part of GW nerfing indirect fire. However, I didn't use them with Bombast Cannons as indirect fire units, but as anti tank Heavy Lascannons, and were thus punished by a balancing change that was targeted at a completely different weapon profile. If they intend to keep wargear costs free, they should either make sure the different options are close to equally viable, or split units up by their main armament like they did with the Leman Russ variants. (And now for some straight up heresy: I suggest Astra infantry plasma guns are made baseline 5+ BS with the Heavy keyword. Look at those massive things! A massive nerf to my own army, but at least it would add some meaningful choice of wargear.)

[@Chris-jl6vp]

Yes. Bring back the player decision of cost-effective loadouts vs fully armed loadouts, give people a choice to choose rather than be forced to stuff a load of useless weapons on say a battlewagon or vanquisher leman russ. People have no reason to be scared of adding numbers up, that's what calculators and battlescribe is for.

[@RockmeHellsing]

as a new player, 9th was scary for me because i need to buy to many modell for so many otions, did not even know what to choose and so on i love to deck out my dudes like i want to

[@knabseraph]

I think it's the balancing team failing to balance using equipmemt points, rather than people scared of using them

[@attemptedunkindness3632]

@@RockmeHellsing That's the beauty and the message GW missed. Build the army that you want: if you want more dakka, research and acquire more dakka, if you want to move faster, buy red paint, ect. Then you get stuck in a real match and you figure out what works and what doesn't. You learn. You buy more bits. You get more invested. Now 40k feels more like a subscription service where you have to check to make sure your model isn't in legends/what prescribed datasheet they are now in without exception.

[@Chris-jl6vp]

@@RockmeHellsing Then don't buy models for all the options. Look up the best weapon options for whatever vehicle or squad you want to run and run that. Or look up a tutorial on how to magnetise your weapon options to one model.

[@Chris-jl6vp]

@@knabseraph I wouldn't say it if I didn't witness it, but I always see comments remarking on how they're afraid of adding on a few extra points to their army as if Battlescribe or similar apps or just a friggin' calculator don't exist. But you're right, I don't think they're actually afraid of it. I think they don't want to put in the effort of doing a little bit of math, and that's truly sad as hell.

[@bodboddington9367]

I prefer paying for wargear. This is mostly because I am a "build your own hero" guy. Generally prefering to build leaders over take special models 🙂

[@jellydamgood]

I like how a relic power sword crafted with half forgotten technology and exceedingly rare costs the same as a mass produced chainsword.

[@jakobknudsen6864]

For all the problem 9th edition's Tyranids had, that book made list building so much fun. Tyranid warriors especially, where you could run them with their cheap gear or buff them up with a bunch of cool upgrades to make an (admittedly way overpowered) extremely murderous squad was a lot of fun. I've sorely missed that with 10th edition, which removed *all* of that customization. Though it did find a way to make melee-only Tyranid warriors feel good to play with, which 9th didn't do, so that's something. More broadly, I really do think that having a handful of optional upgrade options on certain units would be an elegant solution to this problem. Even if it isn't quite as granular as points-per-wargear (which is cool for veterans, but I speak from experience when I say that it is a major, major headache for new players), having, say, the ability to purchase a "normal" or "elite" version of the squad with different wargear options would not add that much cognitive load to the list-building process.

[@stevenbolton1244]

I really liked list building in 9th, it was as 15-20% of my whole hobby enjoyment and I was gutted when it left. However I'm used to it now and it does simplify building your models as you just take best loadout. I genuinely don't mind either way now but I would love to see points per model come back for in between min max squad sizes I think that would add more choice back to list building without screwing up the simplified new points costs overmuch.

[@Anton-cc7yc]

I collect the Guard. Tons of infantry squads, tons of sponsons/pintle-mount. Taking it for free just FEELS wrong. Like abusing an obvious/unintended bug.

[@TheBaconator666]

I play AoS more than 40k so I’m used to it but it annoys me no end as I loved building a custom Chapter master or a tooled up blender vampire lord in oldhammer.

[@brujakbg3023]

I would like it very much. It's a fun part of list building imo.

[@MelkorPaulus]

Yes please, and get rid of the combiweapon profile

[@Paladin327]

Or bring back the anti-infantry/monster/vehicle profiles that were originally inteded for the combin flamer/plasma/melta, as seen in the booklet from Leviathan

[@PC_Player1]

I think its funny you mentioned Death Guard specifically in this about the options. I went through a process when I first started. I have only played in 10th but started collecting in 9th. trying to figure out wear gear and options was an interesting and slightly complicated system; I didn't know what to call everything and took me a while to get used to what was what even in 10th (ESPECIALLY the plague marines). I bought my DG second hand and didn't really have a competitive mindset then, I just wanted to play. But the more I used them the more I realized that I had built them wrong, I looked back at my sheets and was like "ohh I made these guys mainly with bolters, and they are kind of useless." so I went back and built them with the more diversified shooting profile, played a couple more they did pretty poorly, then I checked what the competitive scene did and noticed that most run 7 melee and 2 meltas... So I felt like I had to buy another kit and some more second hand marines that were "optimized" and after some heavy kit bashing made 7 melee marines out of 1 new box and 1 left over sprue (from my earlier build of mainly shooting), now they perform decently. But as I was playing, I kept saying there is no reason to play these other options because of what does better overall cost nothing different. Seriously at the moment there is no reason at all to take a squad of bolters, they just don't do enough vs what you could do if you all the other gear options, unless you can't fit anything else in. The current Meta currently leans into the heavy firepower of tanks and monsters with numerous shooting profile, but it doesn't cost anything to load them all up with the best shooting profiles and get the maximum benefits of just adding all the gear. While as a collection standpoint thats great, a balance point that means you run into cookie cutter builds for squads and loadouts. Like in MMOs there were optimized trees, and you most likely needed to use it for the hardest content, here on the tabletop if the squad isn't optimized it feels like its a waste or just a stop gap. Either way the flavor is kind of drained. I would love to see more diversified profiles (if they are doing a pure point system) where you would be incentivized to take a pure bolter group, a heavy/special weapons group, or a pure melee group. They do it for some, but those with a diverse wear gear profiles seem to be hit the hardest when it comes down to use. You have options that just are worthless, unless they change the points for them or give special rules. Even after watching your video on rating the bolter marines, which I chuckled at when you mentioned: " I am giving them this (high 'X') rating not for their bolters but other (options)". Because bolters are primarily useless when you can take literally anything else in comparison, and its one of the most if not THE MOST iconic weapons that they can use. I love the simplicity of the system at times because it frees up building without it being overly complicated, but i do think that some of the gear either needs a cost or special rules for when you don't take multiple profiles. My example may be if you take all bolters then improve BS by 1 and AP by -1 so that it maybe compete with a tank option that can load up with all shooting and put out way more fire power and last a lot longer. Buts that's my feeling and I haven't even been playing more than year really.

[@harlankovacs6276]

Without points i feel like weapons have no value. More seriously, points were a great aditionnal lever to balance weapons and choosing to invest points into a squad wargear meant a lot. Since everything is free now, every squad looks the same because of the meta and the game take more time during the shooting phase since you have to check for 4 different weapons stats all the time and on every squad. I miss having a super cheap squad who requires exactly 20 dices to throw with the same stats (and with a simple objective in mind) while another one is far more expensive in points and is fully equiped with meltas and gadgets (for example) with a specific job in mind. edit :I miss the relics too, especially in the adeptus mechanicus army.

[@realllybadgaming9216]

PER MODEL COST PLEASE This would allow me to go "ahh I think this squad could use an extra guy, or maybe this AT squad needs an extra melta". As it stands, I have to go buy another 5 models to include one more gun because GW has arbitrarily shot themselves in the foot. Not to mention, there's no reason to not take a better close combat weapon if it's free... so why aren't the units auto-equipped with it?

[@Paladin327]

Or even better “if i take one model out of both of these two squads, along with my left over points, i can take a whole new squad that can be a speedbump to protect my other elite unit over here”

[@garbagecan755]

There are no pros to this system that can't be replicated with the points for wargear with the SOLE exception of it taking GW more work. Also, it actually makes unit balancing harder. When you have more balance lever to pull you have more control over the balance of the final product. They removed an entire lever. Additionally, I have a disability (dyscalculia) that actually makes the new list building as opposed to the old list building take twice as long and is twice as grating.

[@markhickson9087]

Short and simply YES would have done, but thanks for the video.

[@effindave6909]

For the health of the game probably yes. For myself personally... I like being able to take all the special weapons and stuff.

[@samhunter1205]

You can with a proper points system as well . . .

[@Magos_Sigma]

You could do that before.

[@Frick_Heckman]

@@effindave6909 yes, balance them different, but let me take all the stuff that looks cool my dudes please.

[@effindave6909]

@@samhunter1205 Sure but is it really worth it to spend an extra 30 points on a unit of termigants to take all the pretty meh extra guns? Like I said for the health of the game the answer is probably yes but from just wanting dumb fun then no.

[@ColinWhoLikesStuff]

@@Magos_Sigma No not really

[@Pillsfordrills]

I definitely want them to fix some units like the Drukhari Scourges that are rightfully very expensive for their hit & run anti-tank potential but are absolutely not worth it if you're bringing them with Shredders or with other lighter weapons.

[@lefaux7235]

It's just power level, we collectively hated and didn't use it so gw took our choice away.

[@daerovius7535]

No "we" didn't collectively hated it... Some morons with IQ lower than that of a bonobo were not able to use it correctly, but people with a functional brain loved it

[@Rottenflieger.]

Very true, disappointingly in the previews for the new edition they had the gall to spin it as doing what we wanted them to, claiming they removed power level because it was unpopular and kept points. Just because they're called "points" doesn't change that the system is fundamentally still power level but with a but with a tad more granularity

[@GeekEnglish]

The problem is who knows what will happen in 11th. They could cancel free wargear and everyone who hasn't magnetised is completely screwed with WYSIWYG rules

[@simonolsson9358]

I thought i was gonna miss both the various costs of wargear and custom unit sizes at first, but honestly now i don't mind that it's gone. I know one of the main arguments for bringing it back is "player choice" but honestly that was rarely actually the case before with wargear before. In my experience, in the case of most units the winning concept was "as cheap as possible". In most cases you actually didn't use the special weapons for most units. And if there was a very clear optimal way to play a unit, why would you choose any other way if you're making a competetive list? Take a standard unit of Battle sisters. In 9th, before novitiates, it was your only troop option so you usually played with a few squads. But as they were chaff units, you would never give them any sort of wargear as it was just wasted points. In 10th however, it is absolutley viable to play them with either MM/Meltagun or HF/flamer. So i actually have more options now in that regard.

[@Nazdreg1]

I am for a nuanced approach. We have several issues here: 1. "May take" options 2. "Either/or" options 3. A mix between the two. Examples would be 1. The hunter killer missile on vehicles 2. "Sergeant" loadout (i.e. powerweapon or power fist or chainsword) 3. special weapon option in squads like Guard infantry. May take, but then choose between which one. My ideal solution would be, always add point costs for "may take" because it is always an asset that should have a price. In case of "either/or", I would love it if they were able to balance the options against each other so that each one is equally viable but for different purposes. In that case, you wouldn't need points costs. If there is a "may take" with an option which one to choose, I would love a basic cost for taking the option at all and then have the possibilities again balanced against each other. A good example is a flamer/plasma or melta as special weapon. They are perfectly balanced against each other, almost equally useful, just against different targets. In that case, you could pay for a special weapon and then just choose which one. If the hunter killer missile is for free, the option, not to take it, doesn't make sense at all. So you need a price and even if it is only one point. Sergeant loadouts are generally well balanced too, imho, so I don't see a problem there. However.... Aeldari have some seriously bad offenders of horrible option balance. Wraithknight is significantly worse with close combat equipment than with shooting (and the wraith cannon is much stronger than the sun cannon even against the sun cannons intended target). Imagine if i.e. the sun cannon were torrent and maybe ignore cover and the melee weapon had anti monster/vehicle 4+ and dev wounds. and the shield option would be -1 to wound and 4+ invuln. People would start thinking. Also the weapon platform. It is priced to match the d cannon, which makes especially the vibro cannon hot garbage and the shadow weaver weak in comparison. Let's see if the D cannon has only one shot and no blast and the vibro cannon gets indirect. Same thing. People would start thinking and considering which one suits best for them. This is what we want. So: Add points for "may take" and balance "either/or" better against each other. That way, we don't end up with a bloated clusterf*** and still achieve better results for the game.

[@keyanklupacs6333]

Nah just add points, no conditionals pay for the good shit you take lmao.

[@yabarber6902]

Absolutely. Upgrades are upgrades for a reason. It’s odd that lascannons and heavy bolsters cost the same for devastators since lascannons historically have been about 10-15 points more because they’re just better overall.

[@azregard722]

I started in 6th edition with Dark Angels and Grey Knights. I remember combing over those codexes trying to optimize my points with my wargear, and it made every option feel viable. "Why'd you take that?" Oh because I had 5 points spare. Building a grey knight army was like making a bunch of tiny kill teams, which felt so cool. It also was hell to manage, especially if you had to proxy models. Part of me really likes the new pickup and play models, without having to stress over the war gear. Personalyl, I love your proposed solution of 2 separate codex entries based on wargear. I think having a standard unit for its traditional points cost followed by a slightly more expensive "specialist" unit with available upgrades would be far better for the game as a whole.

[@David-b3v2d]

Nobz with power klaw and slugga cost the same as nobz with kombi weapons. Need I say more hehe

[@grahamwilliamson5306]

Free wargear is good for overall balance but horrendous for internal balance within factions. It really forces lists to be very 1 dimensional but on the flip side makes units with similar points values compete fairly well across factions. It also punishes armies with a limited model range cause you don't have alternatives if any certain unit gets nerf, IE rubric marines

[@bignickenergy3525]

To balance against other weapon options yes, but I see why having them free is appealing as you can just model your unit as you enjoy. I'd like them back, personally. Even if they keep the box-restriction they have currently.

[@keyanklupacs6333]

I'd prefer they go all the way I want to take all meltas and all flamers. In a single squad to specialize againist a single profile. Thats why they called them "special weapons"

[@gregsmw]

modeling your unit as you enjoy is less punishing with costs though without costs if "how you enjoy" isnt the objectivly most powerful loadout you get punished hard

[@piotrjeske4599]

You build your custodes wardens with axes. Now you have three units armed with weapons inferior in almost every situation

[@priestking8636]

I remember the biggest issue with Power Levels from 8ed and why nobody played thus except chaos summoning demons. We found some combos where one player with the same amount of power levels could bring 100-250 points (pts) than his opponent))

[@BlackXIV]

I have a biiig problem with the points at the time since... what is the reason for all the "optional" upgrades a unit can get if not taking them just gives you an disadvantage? Like extra weapons a model can get without replacing anything... also some models can have weapons that fire without line of sight so the model got more expensive for that even if not using that weapon... some other units just feel strange like for Example Rogal Dorn. .. 2 main guns... 1 gives you more range, more power, more armor pen..add a second gun as well .. the other one just has twin linked but less armor pen, less range, less shots (since don´t have a auto canon) and les piwer .... so why ever take the other one? Some weapon "downsides" can just be negated by army rules... like hammers hitting 1 less but then have an army or a setup that gives you +1 to hit (like space Wolves had last edition) so there is no reason ever taking something else than the best weapon with no downside anymore... And older models/kits get problems,... like Astra tanks with no sponsens... or Termagants from Leviatan with no special weapons.... you still "pay the points" for them even if not even owning the models for them.... means any time GW remade a model now it is possible the old ones becomes weaker since the new ones got new extra gear that is free.

[@friendlyneighbourhoodsunwheel]

Now do a video about the dropping of psychic phase and the warlord traits and relics.

[@manuelacosta7567]

I do admit that the thing that brought me back to Warhammer was the new simple way to build armies (in tts for example) and it is also what brought me to buy Necrons to build a 1000p list, but it is true that now that i'm at the very least a little more comfortable with list building that the use of wargear points and flexible building would bring a lot more enjoyment (AND not having your freshly painted models be obsolete because now some weapon combinations are illegal)

[@schno.z]

Amen this, this right here is the reason why I’d say keep it free. From how many times they want to change a rule and be so wishywashy about the next rule set that having everything just be free is the best way to do it because one second it’s take 10 plague marines with and the fixings to a hand full with all the same load out, and I don’t have 8 melta plague marines

[@thorscape3879]

WYSIWIG is not required. Build your models how you want.

[@SGWeber]

Something I liked from the 5th edition space marines codex is the "standard" weapon upgrades being free but the fancier ones having a points cost. Sergeants could take bolters or chainswords free, but power weapons cost more. Flamers, heavy bolters, and missile launchers were "standard," so only melta and plasma weapons and lascannons cost points. I think it was similar to the sort of system you mentioned with only the best weapons increasing cost. That, and individual models having points costs. I would love points for gear to return, because currently there's no tradeoff to running a barebones vs upgraded squad or character. I'd also love to see the sheer flexibility of leader loadouts come back, since the fixed options are pretty boring.

[@SoCloseToSkill]

Yes. And pls don't have their costs in increments of 5. This makes balencing significantly and unnecessarily harder. And give us variable squad sizes back. We have apps for the math.

[@Scion_40k]

Want to see the return of custom wargear for leader characters. Playing hero hammer is part of the appeal of the game, IMO

[@JesperJotun]

They forced us into Power Level. No more, no less. The removal of points per model was more to ensure that folks were building "from the box" rather than using 3D printing or EBay to source the extra hits needed to give an entire Blightlord Terminators squad Combi-Plasma, or having 3x Cyclic Ion Blasters on Tau Battlesuits. You build what you buy. Power Weapons do not have stat differences, but why take a Power Sword when you take a Power Fist? There's no reason not to. Same cost, better statline, and if you run a Gravis Captain with the Relic Fist, you get an extra attack (which is cool). This is great, to some degree, for newer players. Less analysis paralysis, and rule of cool means a Power Axe is what you want, but now your model is less effective. No more! However, it also changed loadouts and obliterated Combi-Weapons as a differentiated wargear choice. A Combi-Flamer is not the same as a Combi-Melta in form or function - yet it's the same. My hope is that 10th was the "reset" and we start seeing diversification return in 11th. I also think that adding +1 model to a unit, or +1 objectively better weapon (Power Fist again) could be an additional lever to pull for GW. It's less crunchy, but means that a player must make some fun/interesting choices. But I'll trade all the above for the Custom Chapteres/Septs/etc again. Bring back those rules - where we can have Index Astartes articles again and fun Successor Chapters again.

[@AndrewNarog]

Hear, hear. The loss of flavor for chapters, etc. was brutal to endure... and combining all the combi-weapons into a single profile never made any sense to me. Really hope we see more flavor for subfactions return with 11th, if not sooner.

[@Paladin327]

@@AndrewNaroghell, with the instruction booklet from the leviathan box, we could see that there were plans for combi flamer/plasma/melta were originally inteded to have anti-infantry/monster/vehicle repsectivly. While not ideal. 8/ still better than what we have now

[@AndrewNarog]

@@Paladin327 I'd actually take that solution. As you said, not ideal, but at least it differentiates between the guns.

[@gabrielegranocchia]

I like that now unit's "sergeants" are able to take special weapons freely, it's more fun, and makes the game more visually appealing rathar than having sergents just being normal models. Same for vox/banners/icons that where nowhere in previous editions. As a negative I agree that sometimes anti-infantry units are not strong enough, i would like to see a buff to the heavy requiem to punch it up to be as strong against infantry as much as a lasercannon is strong against tanks.

[@changrcaterham5784]

Remember guys simplified not simple! Who cares about flavour or balance?

[@keyanklupacs6333]

AND THERE'S STILL LOADS OF NUANCE! Even bigger liar than Todd Howard.

[@michaelgwartney2672]

@@keyanklupacs6333 So much nuance in 10th. Does my unit have sustained hits, lethal hits, or dev wounds, or maybe some combination of these 3 rules. Wow! What interesting gameplay and special rules we have! It's almost like every army stacks the same 3 buffs and spams units that have access to these! Great job GW. You sure have a large comprehensive list of Universal Special Rules that makes the game soo soo interesting! Let's just ignore the fact that the old school games (Horus Heresy and The Old World) have way more comprehensive Universal Special Rules that also have way more flavor and are much more interesting. Whoa! My squad has a bunch of different weapons to choose from?! Wow! Which one will I choose?? Oh the one that is just blatantly better than all the others. Okay. Oh? And it's free to upgrade it? Sure. I'll do that literally 100% of the time. What interesting decisions to make in list building!

[@8-7-styx94]

I only have one problem with war gear. Most options don't have the keywords they sorely need. Melta weapons for instance should all have anti-vehicle 4+ for example. This wouldn't change how they affect rhinos but it would mean tougher vehicles, basically everything else, doesn't take a 5+ to wound.

[@michaelgwartney2672]

This just points to the problem of Anti-X stuff. They widen the range of Strength on weapons and Toughness on vehicles, but they made it so weapons that are designed to kill certain things no longer have the stats for it. Huge flavor fail. Like why should a melta even need anti-vehicle? Shouldn't it just be high enough strength to wound them? I mean it always has been, but now it no longer is for some mysterious reason. Same with stuff like Chainfists. Why is it strength 8 anti-vehicle when it could just be strength 12-14 or something and then this increased range of strength on weapons would actually have a purpose.

[@Paladin327]

I’d actually change how melta works. Instead of getting more damage within half range, it should be higher strength at half range. It would be more in line with how melta used to work back when armor values were a thing. If within half range, meltas would roll two dice for armor penetration and add them both

[@chrisstevens2944]

Yes! Without even watching YES!

[@AndrewNarog]

In regards to base vs upgraded units, Corsair Voidreavers and Voidscarred show that Games Workshop should be open to this solution. Definitely would welcome having more options, especially ones that help encourage flavour for the army, tailoring it to be more elite or common, for instance. 10th removing points per model and war gear pricing rather hurt my enthusiasm for the edition.

[@peters6345]

I prefer to pay for wargear it was a fun puzzle to figure out in list building. Now it's boring in my opinion

[@graham1034]

Personally I prefer wargear costs and especially individual model pricing where it makes sense. Using Battlscribe makes the process easy enough.

[@TheGeneralSkye]

T'au crisis suits are a perfect example of why this didn't work, before the codex dropped you always just wanted to take the best weapons on them, which turned out was the CIB because it was more effective into most targets than any of the specialised weapons. The only way they can make this work is that they do what they did with the codex tau to other armies, group similar weapons together into different units, then the trade-off between them is more reasonable and also allows them to point weapon groups effectively rather than penalising bad weapons by grouping them with good options.

[@keyanklupacs6333]

Y'know the crisis suit kit doens't even come with a cyclic ion blaster lmao but ALSO what if like the "worse" weapons just costed less points.

[@TheGeneralSkye]

@@keyanklupacs6333 thats kind of what i was getting at. The CIB was the best weapon they could take in the last two editions because of how general purpose it was. It didn't help that pretty much every other gun in the index was bland and uninteresting with no fun rules to make them interesting to use. The only keyword they got in the index weapons list was TORRENT and MELTA on the flamer and melta weapon, (CIB had hazardous as well). No sustained hits, no precision, no anti-X

[@michaelgwartney2672]

@@TheGeneralSkye This doesn't sound like a problem with points. It just sounds like GW needed to better balance the options for them either through buffs/nerfs and point adjustments. Why throw out the entire system because of one example of a strong weapon option that could be fixed by a competent balance team?

[@TheGeneralSkye]

@michaelgwartney2672 because it's an example of the systemic issue that free wargear causes. Why would you ever take a las pistol over a plasma if they both cost the same as a more generic example?

[@michaelgwartney2672]

@@TheGeneralSkye I'm saying free wargear is the problem and it could be solved with individual point costs and nerfs and buffs. I am not in favor of free wargear if that's what you're thinking

[@michaelgwartney2672]

Yes, and relics, and warlord traits and subfaction traits.

[@Paladin327]

I’d love if they bring back relics that can be given at the character level. One per character, and the warlord can take one additional. And make enhancements more like buffs for the bearer/squad

[@Peace_of_Mind99]

As a new player that dipped my toes into 8th I like that they have trimmed all that stuff down honestly. I don't want to spend exorbitant amounts of time list building, for me that's not where the fun is. It would be cool to have options for enhancements for normal squads though, like the adrenal glands or toxin sacs. Might be fun.

[@Korhanne]

I have two minds about this. all the points said are valid. It also feels way, way less flavourful and customizable. I liked being able to give my Terminator lord a berzerker glaive and a combi bolter or whatever back in 3.5, but it was a pain in the ass for anyone playing against me. at the same time, I feel like when you're getting down to the individual grenades or some such it doesn't really matter that much. that's the arena for games like black crusade or dark heresy, not this (grand) battle simulator. I also feel like "people usually just take this anyway." Las/Plas is/was very common everywhere for good reason. Pop tanks and light vehicles and TEQ's? no brainer, bring it on most every squad you can, and it barely mattered which faction you were playing, it was pretty much always worth it. But points restricted it a lot. What's more important, another body, or a big gun? -- that's what it came down to. Without that, you've got more models. Whatever else, people generally like having more mini's than less. Surprisingly, I guess I'm in the camp of 'everyone gets some free.' -- There are some things from prior editions that fundamentally changed the unit in question, things like terminator armour vs. chaos armour, jetpacks, juggernauts -- some make more sense to be wargear, some to make an entirely different unit. For a unit of dudes though... let people have dakka. Shootyness is fun-ness, so says Gork, possibly mork, and/or Khorne and the rest of the chaos gods.

[@BitSlinger84]

I wasn’t around for 9th. How hard was this sort of system to balance? Was it ever achieved in your opinions?

[@horuslupercal2385]

It took a little longer to fine-tune a list, but it wasn't difficult at all. Not to mention the points cost per model, so you could always squeeze an extra model here or there to use up all of your points budget.

[@gregsmw]

way WAY easier then without costs 10th has been better balanced between armies (for the msot part, end of 9th was better then any point of 10th, but most of 9th was worse) but thats more of a change in design ideas, in 9th there was a LOT of codex creep which made every new army coming out just obscenely strong compared to the field, had nothing to do with wargear, entirely to do with design intent, 10th largely solved that design intent and kept (for the most part, there are outliers) codicies on par with each other internally however, between units within a coded, and between weapons on those units, 10th is literally the worst balance has EVER been, and its almost purely to do with the removal of wargear costs the removal of wargear costs has made the "meta option" SOOOOOO much stronger comapred to the off meta options if you want to take a gun "cos its cool" and not cos its meta, 10th is literally the worst the game has EVER been for that, and is a HUGE driving force for why armies like SM have incredibly low tournament winrates, because the "offmeta" picks are so much worse, and punished so much harder, then they ever were in the past

[@keyanklupacs6333]

Not bad at all you either cheap out and don't get the extras but that squad will not punch up as well into tough stuff or sacrifice some potential extra squads for some high ap and strength firepower or better crowd clearing etc!

[@MaHaL1337]

I think they need to. I feel like Guard specifically gets hit with this in a way that makes it not fun for list building because there is a meaningful difference between a clean Russ or Inf squad vs one with sponsons or special weapons.

[@ianhorne2884]

26 min video for him to just say "yes" .

[@nipplesalads4205]

And you watched all of it🤡

[@BitSlinger84]

You spoiled it!!! Lmao

[@ianhorne2884]

@BitSlinger84 it's not like it's a shock

[@VegtamTheWonderer]

Those 26 minutes are the difference between screeching meaninglessly into the void and making a meaningful argument.

[@CuriousLumenwood]

This motherfucker has such a short attention span he thinks creating a discussion and weighing the pros and cons for TWENTY SIX MINUTES is a waste of time. Do you just eat your bread straight out the bag cuz you can’t wait for it to be toasted? Sorry, it’s stupid of me to ask a question like that, you probably didn’t even take the time to read it.

[@HurtLoker]

I propose a middle ground where they just make separate data sheets for example Plague Marines have a data sheet that is just champion (w/special melee weapon) and everyone else is just bolters. Then make a "Nurgle Chosen Squad" that take all the special weapons by default. They can have different rules and be pointed based on the special weapons. Or an Assault squad with all melee weapons and give them a special rule around combat or getting into combat.

[@equos5060]

Yeah, I assembled my tanks with cheaper weapons like flamers and heavy bolters and now I'm forced to either tear them away and replace with lascannons or count-as half of my army. Oh wait, I can always buy another 8 tanks, right GW?

[@keyanklupacs6333]

@TheMarcosvolta Cool anyway heavy bolters and flamers shouldn't be the same price as LCs and MMs because they're not as good at lascannons and multimeltas. Otherwise just bring bare bones equipment to every fight because clearly it's all just the same ;)

[@plagueatheart]

I've played old editions and now back from 10th I like getting rid of gear costs, there's less incentive to do magnetizing and I can put on things that look cool and do the function. Yeah my shooting and combat phases take a bit longer as a deathguard player but I think it's all more fun for me in both playing and building.

[@Matwho]

My only issue is I have been playing all troops no loots for decades. So now that everything is free I have thousands of points of models that are under equipped.

[@Dram1984]

Yeah, I played guard and basically everything I own is underpowered and overpointed with wysiwyg.

[@GaryP336]

And that's exactly why they got rid of it. 10 or 5 man squads running round in their underwear to keep points down looks absolutely awfull

[@keyanklupacs6333]

@@GaryP336 Ya your right they should bring back the combinable infantry squads to create 50 man blobs instead of this lame 20, 10 and 5 man slop shit.

[@cheesemarine]

​@GaryP336 not really, in a world where plasma weapons are meant to be rare i quite liked only seeing them in specialist suicide guard vet squads or scions, vs just in every single squad because why wouldn't you take one? It pains me because it just makes any option other than plasma + melta seem like a waste now.

[@chrisbeau76]

Can we also get back a list of psychic abilities for factions that have Psykers? It seems extremely over simplified that looking for a certain psychic attack or ability only tied to one specific model when we used to have at least a list of 4 to 6 to pick from. Even Necrons when their refresh rolled out last edition, they introduced a Crpyptek Arkana system that you could spend points basically to add an ability to a Cryptek such as dealing 1d3 mortal wounds once every shooting phase for 25 points, which was locked specifically into the psychomancer. It seems a shame that they introduced the Arkana system for only one eddition and then the whole concept was scrapped and now we have this system where spedic characters can only join certain units and if you’re not playing space marines, you’re more likely to have heroes that have a restricted list of 1-2 units that they can join. I was pretty disappointed to see that when 10th edition launched that the Skorpek destroyers lost their three damage weapon, which is aesthetically shown on the third model wielding one blade with two arms, which you would get for every three models in the unit and then decided that all three destroyers were going to have the same weapon characteristics… Ovidian Destroyers lost their two extra claw attacks, and they also had special dual blades for every three you placed in a unit and they had a minus one to be hit in melee which was their only way of trying to stay alive with their lower toughness versus their larger cousins, who had a much higher toughness and whirling blades increased their durability even more. I would love to see Ophydians gain something like the minus one to be hit in melee since they are not able to have a character attached. I personally was a big fan of the every three or five models in a unit allowed you to swap out a weapon for something different instead of giving the whole squad, the ability or the ability to not do anything at all with the loadouts

[@E_xtinctPower]

i think we should do both! where it makes sense for one weapon to cost a litlle extra, it should, and where it wouldn't make any changes it shouldn't. - plus this will help with making list making more dynamic

[@awasuhl4255]

Im a very wysiwyg player. I dont like doing magnets. I would love if gw allowed me to make a space marine captain with something other than power fist and plasma pistol without feeling bad

[@Bottle-OBill]

If it's not going to affect their primary purpose, like a guard sergeant with a power weapon instead of a chainsword, then the options don't need points. However if one/multiple weapon profile/s is/are pushing the cost of the unit up, those should absolutely come with a points cost. Using the Guard as an example; The cost of Cadian Shock Troops could be wargear agnostic since a meltagun and plasma gun or flamer and grenade launcher aren't going to affect the units role or even combat ability all that much, but I don't thing anyone would too miffed if each Leman Russ was 5 points more expensive than now, but 15-20pts cheaper if they don't have their sponsons. Another would be Chaos Legionaries having a special rule for melee combat, so I don't think people would get mad if a squad with bolters was 5-10pts cheaper than one with swords. Basically having how it is, but with outliers that make other loadout worthless having an increased points cost.

[@PatrickF2442]

This is also what I thought, at least for Guard (I don't play any other armies yet xD) Sponsons should have cost for bring them vs not. But general infantry upgrades should be free, like the sergeant loadouts. Maybe add 5 points to melta/plasma on Troopers and keep the flamer/grenade launcher free? At least in my experience melta/plasma tend to be more effective.

[@TeeDubzz]

Yes - lack of points for wargear make listbuilding easier but kills internal balance. I understand the need for it with Killteam or Combat Patrol but I think we can handle gear costs heading into 11e as we all know how to magnetise now :)

[@streetmark98]

if 12 yr old me could figure out 3rd and 4th edition points systems, the average new player can do it now in the year of emperor 2024

[@keyanklupacs6333]

No, you don't understand these people will literally shake and cry and wail and nash their teeth in rage at the idea of being forced to do basic arithmetic! 😆

[@blandedgear9704]

Especially with all the explainer videos and guides the internet can supply

[@michaelgwartney2672]

Yeah I was 11-12 years old writing lists for 3rd edition on paper with a pencil and it was no big deal. They act like adults in 2024 can't manage force org charts, points, wargear, vehicle facings, blast templates, AV Initiative, WS skill charts, etc. when I did it as a small child. They always have to dumb things down for the lowest common denominator. I miss when 40k actually had flavor and felt fun to play and build lists for. 10th is a boring grey blob of goo. Soulless. Atleast there's HH and TOW

[@Paladin327]

@@keyanklupacs6333what i saw that was finny was when i saw some new players complaining that 10th was still too complicated after i was dumbed down

[@williamlowther1204]

keep the fixed squad sizes... use the base and upgraded lists e.g. base is bolter/flamer for a devastator... upgrade is grav/melta/las/plasma would create a good system while adding some depth

[@sockMonster241]

Grey Knights lost their HAMMERS because of this. You used to be able to give them to an entire squad, which obviously wouldn't fly in 10th at the same cost. I don't mind having 1 Nemesis Weapon profile, because it gets the best of all worlds from previous editions - but NO HAMMERS is a huge blow. The answer is to just let the Justicar take one, or a "Relic" / "Heavy" / "Master Crafted" weapon if they didn't want to make them hammers specifically. But, on the other side of that, despite it hitting my army in a big way, I prefer not having points. I don't want to have to remodel things everytime they change the Halberd or Sword or Falchions because they are the only playable option. I just want balance.

[@alexzero3736]

Deathwing knights got 1 relic weapon for Knights master without points. Just make the same rule for hammers.

[@outs385]

I like the limiting of war gear amounts to unit sizes where there is only 1 to 2 plasma guns per 10 guardsmen as it keeps box sizes down, cheaper, and I think makes war gear options more interesting. Though I would like to see specialty weapons have points costs on the unit datasheet. So most weapons remain free such as your basic small tank guns and unit firearms, but things like plasma guns for a unit of guardsmen or the big cannons would have different costed variants. This would also probably help with reducing the cost of the game's entry, as someone can make some hoard factions a bit more elite and up the points. Not to mention this fixes the problem of some guns being actually useless like when I can get a bolt pistol vs a las pistol, I'm always picking the bolt cause it is better.

[@cgb1995]

The biggest thing that I liked about 10th was the expansion of the core stratagems and reducing the amount of faction stratagems. An issue in 9th was the sheer amount of stratagems that a single army could access and many of those stratagems used to be base abilities in 8th edition. I remember that burna boyz just got AP 2 on their burnas in 8th edition but then they made that a stratagem in 9th. Same thing happened with a lot of other units, remove core ability and make it a stratagem. Would still like to see a return of model points costs and wargear. They wouldn't even need to give points to every piece of wargear,. They've done a decent job balancing out wargear but heavy bolters should be cheaper than lascannons. Individual model costs would bring a lot freedom back to list building, too many units out there are minimum 10 man squads or if you want more than 5 its automatically another full squad. Sometimes I just want an extra two bodies for ablative wounds.

[@awolphotos]

In my mind, I think it’s really weird that space marines, the primo fighting force of the imperium, simply can’t manage to find 8 more plasma pistols to go around. I’m coming back to the hobby after a long time, but I was coming back because I wanted a complex war game to sink my time into understanding and building up an army the way I thought was neat. I now feel very limited. Warhammer is supposed to be a complex game, removing choice doesn’t make it less complex.

[@michaelgwartney2672]

I hate to break it to you but 10th basically ruined everything you probably loved about the game. List building is boring. Special rules are boring. Every squad just spams the best weapons. Terrain is boring. No more WS chart. They sucked all the soul out of the game.

[@illiteratebrian1707]

YES! I remember when they first did this and suddenly every guard vehicle list just got like 14 HK missiles added to their lists for free. It felt so stupid

[@Ot_a_n]

Guard player here I bought HK tokens because of 10th lol. I was using an index card it was hard to track. Chimeras, sentinels, Russes, basilisks, manticores, etc. I’d end up with like ten+ HKs

[@PartNinja]

not exactly free - the cost is built in sorta.

[@hendrikmoons8218]

Bring them back and make em stay! 1. Not all gear is equal 2. No gear ugrade versus all gear is free in an average 2k army is easily 500 points 3. see 2. ==> you can no longer balance the game proper For those folk that go: Oh, now I have to do math... Sure you do, you cheater, just for once bring a points-LEGAL army to the game! It takes little efford, either an add to calculate it for you or... the oldschool pen and paper + calculater(if needed), that is, if you youngsters can stil write...

[@foxnut13]

​@@hendrikmoons8218cheater? 😂 get a load of this granpa

[@OniGanon]

So they add Wargear points back and now you have to rip HK launchers off 14 tanks, would that feel smart?

[@Temsson]

I really like an option for basic + upgraded version of units with 2 different costs, like in Heroes of Might and Magic series.

[@JohnathanCronnelly]

Problem is it didn't have to be all or nothing. Having EVERY weapon option on a model be the same cost makes it hard to design differences between them, besides the obvious of anti-infantry vs anti-vehicle. You end up with a single "best" option. The more correct answer would have been to have points on some things as upgrades, and others baked in to base points as the default option. As an example take Space Marine Devastators. They have 6 different heavy weapons that all had to be equal in power. The better way would be to leave Heavy Bolters/Flamers free as default options, make Plasma/Grav Cannons a 5 point upgrade and a bit stronger, and Melta Guns and Lascannons a 10 point upgrade so they can be really strong. This gives both players and rule makers more flexibility. Notice I still kept everything in 5 point increments, that's fine because it makes list building and balance simpler. If an upgrade isn't worth 5 points make it free, if it becomes a problem bump it up 5 points later, easy. (I'm also fine with limited squad sizes as they are now, but certain units like tac marines NEED a 5 man option, razorback doesn't count) Simpler, without being OVER simplified.

[@michaelgwartney2672]

I still think points should be more granular. If everything is in increments of 5 then what is the point? Just divide 2000 by 5 and then we can play 400 point games with 1 point increments if this is what they wanna do.

[@JohnathanCronnelly]

@@michaelgwartney2672 The more granular you make it the messier list building becomes. As someone who's played since 5th, I agreed with GW that it was too messy before. They just went too far the other way. As for your 400pt suggestion, I have no problem with that at all. Plenty of other games use different scales and a number of them have better balance than 40k. (for example: A Song of Ice and Fire by CMoN has 40pts as the standard for lists. Most upgrades are only 1pt.) The problem is the 40k community expects 2k as the standard, changing it would result in backlash even if it was technically better. Look at Power Levels, while we could definitely debate whether or not GW did that system "well" (I don't think so), no one wanted to use it even if they did think it was better.

[@Greenman347]

I dont mind them being gone, its the same thoughts I had when they removed the Cutomizable Crisis Suit profile. It doesn't matter how much customization you have. Players are just going to use the most optimized weapon anyway.

[@BlankoPie]

When I started collecting Blood Angels in 5th Ed a ton of wargear upgrades were uneconomic from a points POV, so I built a lot of barebones units. My old stuff is now less competitive, unless I decide to snap off a bunch of chainswords and bolt pistols from my sergeants and death company.

[@liamb89]

Though im a fan of bare bones 3rd edition, i say bring back 7th edition style of gaming, i say. At its core, it was the most fair and engaging of playing.

[@Deanbeyers1984]

As someone who has only experienced 10th edition this sounds really cool to have additonal wargear options for points.

[@graemereid5688]

​@TheMarcosvolta not really. Originally back in 3rd etc you had seperate lists of special weapons, heavy weapons, sergeant weapons etc plus things like relics, faction special items you could all pick to tailor your unit. It was way more interesting and really wasn't complicated at all. For example Unit A is armed with boltguns but can select 1 special and 1 heavy weapon from the lists, the sergeant can pick 1 weapon from the sergeanrs list to replace his basic bolt pistol or chainsword each weapon has its own cost but its really basic maths. It added so much flavour and tactical fun. I hate how now its just units of identical guys that really can only do one specific job on the table, incoherent reasoning as to why one sergeant gets a power sword but the others don't, no variety in your own or opponents units, the table tops gone from true flexibility and surprising results to basically a rock paper scissors match up. The options "included" are far far fewer. Some units do get to take a special weapon but it's limited to just either a melta or a flamer. Why. It sucks.

[@graemereid5688]

​​@TheMarcosvolta not really. Originally you had seperate special weapons, heavy weapons, sergeant weapons, special item lists. A unit, for example a tactical squad, would then get it's basic bolter and be allowed to choose one special and one heavy weapon. The sergeant could also replace either his bolt pistol or his chainsword for a weapon off the sergeants list. These lists were far more expansive than the options you get "included" nowadays. Very few units will give you actual options but even then its between 2 special weapons, instead of the 8 or so you could pick from before. Each weapon would have its own cost. But that's just really simple maths. It allowed for so much more variety and flavour not to mention tactical tailoring of units. You could get some really surprising results, it also meant units could generally be built to deal with a variety of jobs. Now it's all single units identically equipped. Making it a very rock paper scissors feel a lot of the time on table top. Not to mention dumbing it down and having all your units look identical and boring. As for balance it really wasnt too bad. Balance is shot these days despite what any stats might claim. A codex used to be worth buying. It's pointless now because they're obsolete before they've finished printing. There a rules hotfix every two weeks nowadays to try and sort the horrific balance issues of certain units. 3rd was very stable by comparison. Basically it was no more complicated, no harder to balance and gave real variety and flavour to your units while also adding a fun tactical addition to the game letting you play about with and tailor your units. Creating far more interesting games than having ten identical one trick ponies get hard countered immediately.

[@rwjscaper]

A lot of stuff doesn't need to cost. Extra special/heavy weapons in flexible squads and extra sponsons should absolutely cost more. But a lot of the 1ppm gun upgrades like what Necron Warriors have? Nah just keep 'em the same points.

[@equos5060]

Like I said in the comments of the poll. I hate this edition dictated by tournament bros. This is not what Warhammer was made for. Go play Call of Duty or some other shit.

[@JCMiniPainting]

The simplification of rules was for the casual players, not the tournament bros.

[@facemite]

The game is the most balanced it's ever been and that makes casual games a bunch more fun. If a side effect of the game being good competitively means less lopsided games in casual then that is a good trade off to make.

[@vankraken5490]

@TheMarcosvolta Same song and dance they said about going from 7th to 8th. Then the game became extremely bloated, lots of power creep, games still took forever, but the gameplay only had a fraction of the tactical depth of the gameplay found in 4th - 7th. The common denominator is GW which has shown time and time again that they don't have a good grasp at designing a game ruleset.

[@sadlerbw9]

For the most part, I find that I don't mind this zero-cost much. I think the biggest thing I might be interested in would be for some units that have the potential to take a lot of special weapons and equipment to have one cost for the base unit with no wargear changes, and then another cost for the unit with any and all wargear as you want. My personal example would be basic Sktarii Rangers or Vanguard. Right now there is no reason not to take a seargent melee weapon, a plasma gun, an arc rifle, a transuranic arquebus, and either an omnispex or broad-spectrum data-tether on every unit. This has made basic AdMech infantry pay a decent tax for all this free stuff. However, if there was an option to just ignore ALL of that stuff and take the base unit instead at a lower cost, I think I might do that in some cases either to get more bodies on the table, or to fill in a shortfall in points. Other than that, dealing with this change hasn't actually been as big a deal as I feared it would.

[@ArchmageOfAnarchy]

I want to see it come back. At the end of the day, free wargear has absolutely invalidated Bolt pistols, and it sucks that they're relegated to nothingness

[@gregsmw]

its invalidated literally hundreds of weapons because there are strictly better options i can name maybe 3 units across the entire 40k roster that DONT have a clear best option, and clear worse options

[@stuntman083]

Actually heavy bolt pistols have invalidated bolt pistols lol

[@behemoth9543]

Bolt Pistols and Bolt Guns aren't just weaker than other options, they're basically worthless against everything stronger than a Cultist or Termagant equivalent. Often enough I don't even bother rolling them because they're not worth spending the time on since 3+ or 4+ to hit with S3 or S4 and AP0 is basically only hurting chaff anyway. I don't think even making for example Boltgun Chaos Legionaries 60 instead of 90 points would make them worth taking in a damage dealer sense rather than perhaps just a tanky for the points objective holder which wouldn't be an improvement. Boltguns and their equivalents are so completely useless they need a full rework across all armies.

[@benmurrell8891]

I really miss the end of 7th with the force org detachments for special rules

[@matthewsarson6934]

It's can be somewhat annoying when units like the Crisis suits had a million options, but i think it was healthier for the game and it made it easier to use up remaining points on lists especially with the damn points constantly changing.

[@InquisitorPinky]

It wasn’t healthier. We had the exact same discussions, just about why this or that weapon was a bad choice. Half the equipment was never used and some setups were just clearly the best. So good in fact that we named them. The current system is not perfect,but a lot better. Removing useless choices is a good thing. Dark Eldar witches had like 7 weapons, basically all the same. Combining them was a good idea. And crisis suits actually had strikes rules, the ridiculous suits of 9th were broken, so that didn’t really help either.

[@michaelgwartney2672]

@@InquisitorPinky wow it's almost as if having individual points costs are dials that can be changed individually so that underperforming and overperforming options can be tweaked. But let's just throw out the baby with the bathwater and have every gun cost the same and be the same. Great job.

[@InquisitorPinky]

@@michaelgwartney2672 did you read what I stated? It didn’t work. We had that system and there still was a best option and some you never saw. For SM as an example: depending on your chosen chapter, this best in slot changed. But some weapons were still so bad/expensive, you better ignored that and went with the cheaper weapon. Not because it made sense lore wise, it made sense in playing the game. I remember smash captains, the immortal Grey Knight Apothecary. The librarian Dread with 2+,3++,4+++,5++++ (yes, back then feel no pains stacked) and everyone equipped these models the same, as it just was THE best option. If you only play tow options: the bare bones, nothing equipped, unit to save points and the fully equipped good unit, you didn’t really have any advantage. The moment Wargear cost returns, armies will become even more similar. Because everyone can do basic math and see that there is a „best for points“ option. Wargear cost doesn’t solve that problem. It adds another layer, that makes you feel better. But it will lead to the exact same discussion again.

[@aurinkovuohi3828]

I like to have all special stuff with all of my units. It makes it more casual to both build the minis and make the lists on the go. I can understand why it bothers people competitively but otherwise we casuals do benefit from not having to worry about wargear.

[@vandals4873]

HELL YES! Make list building fun again!

[@magnuslantto9335]

For me it's not about simplifying my own lists. It's about simplifying my opponents. As mainly a tournament player it was very taxing to keep track of al my opponents options and what loadout they were taking. Now I will know what a unit does and what output it has straight away 95% of the time. That and not having to break off arms of my models when trying to optimize lists makes me very happy with this step. There are plenty of places the game is still complex and I think points for wargear is not worth it. I do like the other ways they've started to diversify list building with different points for different unit sizes (this is a place where you can do a lot more balance than you could in 9th) etc.

[@DanTheMan-n5p]

yes, and force organizations also need to return. Its kinda awkward when I go up against a tyranid army with no guants or a necron army with no warriors.

[@athaelstane]

I agree, but as much as my mates crusher stampede always wipes me off the board, it's a fun thematic detachment

[@abstractalien12345]

I agree, though force organization charts are really a work around of bad balance. Sufficient rules and incentivizing of infantry would lead to armies that look more fluffy naturally

[@colinbielat8558]

​@abstractalien12345 even then they can do what HH does and create rites of war to allow for modifications to the force org chart.

[@mattyorshin]

Just make it do two Max squad size battle lines must be taken

[@abstractalien12345]

@@mattyorshin i agree, but would also like to see rules incentives as well, so the forced to take seems leas forced. Map layouts with terrain that create whole sections and objective’s unreachable by vehicles comes to mind. Theres a reason actual armies dont only consist of tanks

[@SCRunnie]

For all the complaints I heard from people about 9th edition, I never once heard a complaint that wargear made the game too complex.

[@michaelgwartney2672]

Yeah. The things people didn't like was stratagem bloat and lethality. 10th still has a lethality problem, everything dies if it dares to peak out from behind the L shaped ruins.

[@Indomitus777]

I feel like another thing you didnt mention was just buffing the weapons that feel "less useful". While not something you could do easily outside of a new codex, if Power Weapons aren't as good as Power Fists (for example) just buff Power weapons. I always think if Power Weapons were Dmg2 theyd be a lot more interesting, since you really want a special weapon to kill MEQs. the Power fist does that now, but should really be more of a thing you take for being able to kill light vehicles IMO. a Power Sword having more attacks and filling its role is where its at, even if Power Fist was still the "meta". There's always a "meta". But allowing the weapons to just be more in line with each other would go a long way. GW needs to think "okay, Power Weapon vs Power Fist vs Thunder Hammer, why should someone take each over the default chain sword?" and then make the weapon the best of the bunch for that thing. Like chainswords are lots of low AP low damage attacks (maybe with blast? or some rule that gives them more attacks in hordes?), Power Weapons are fewer attacks but slightly higher str and better AP?Damage for dealing with MEQs, Power Fist is higher strength fewer attacks but can deal with elite untis/small vehicles, and THammers are unweirldy but extra high str damage/AP for dealing with the biggest/toughest normal enemies. Sure, you might go Chainsword/Power Swrod on a normal unit of Intercessors beacause of what they are normally doing and do another weapon on Terminators/Vanguard but thats actually pretty fluffy in universe. You might have a Seargent with a PFist, but thatd be less normal than seeing him with a Chainsword or Power Weapon given their usual role.

[@keyanklupacs6333]

"Just make all the regular weapons better!" Buffing everything doesn't help because we wind up arriving at the same problem we had an edition ago where the first person to look at the other person's unit blows it up. We need to scale back raw stats and reward spending resources. You can't always buff. Stop it.

[@ironninja259]

@@keyanklupacs6333 you don't need to buff everything, that's not what they're saying. You just have to give each option a specialisation so there's a point to take each one depending on the unit's intended role.

[@michaelgwartney2672]

@@ironninja259 There was a point to taking worse weapons before, saving points on your list. Now there is literally none. From a fluff point of view a chainsword should never be as good as a power fist so i'd rather it just be cheaper point wise instead of trying to buff it to be as strong.

[@ironninja259]

@@michaelgwartney2672 I think it generally makes more sense and is simpler to make each weapon equally good at a different role. Space Marine 2 did it with the chainsword, power sword, power fist and combat knife so there is now precedent in lore.

[@RazgrizRed9]

I suspect that in 11th they will reintroduce the levels of squad weapons customisation (eg intercessors - 1 with heavy weapon, 1 with special weapon) and that MAY also bring back wargear points. I just hope they bring back custom sqaud sizes with points per model.