...So you're advocating that saurus warriors should have a 2"/3+/3+/-1/1 attack profile? May as well just scrap warriors altogether and field Saurus Guard instead, since there's no real difference between the two units at that point.
When on earth did he say that? He said the weapon profiles should be combined, which in no scenario gets to the profile you just put out there. At best it would be the current Club profile, maybe with 2" reach. And "no difference between the units" because a temporary 6 month rule makes one special rule obsolete? Sure, I guess if you ignore the different wounds, points cost, and number of models.
What
@cyberhawk94 says pretty much. I never argued for any specific weapon profile, and definitely not for a profile that's better than both of their current profiles.
All I'm saying is the following:
1) I think (most) 32mm models (and smaller) should be able to attack in two ranks (in so far AoS has "ranks"). It fits with their larger unit sizes and weaker individual models, and it removes some of the more awkward positioning issues caused by simply having a big unit size. (there are also some bigger units for whom it might make sense, I'll get back to that later
)
2) I don't particularly care about melee weapons having different ranges. Reaching over a screen to poke a unit behind it is, imho, rather silly and game-y for 99% of units. So just give them standardized ranges, and only allow units to attack the models that they can reach without having to poke over a screen.
3) Spears/Clubs are too similar regardless, and imho, we're better off just having 1 profile for balancing purposes. At least then buffs from spells/abilities/etc. don't need to be balanced around the notion that they can also be put on the other weapon.
More generally speaking, different weapon load-outs that still fill the largely the same niche (e.g. spear v.s. sword, axe v.s. club) are nearly always a pointless choice, as either it's too similar (e.g. some SCE units with hammers v.s. swords) or there's a very clear superiour option (e.g. spears are basicly always the better option in large units, similarly, the scar vet on carno just picks whichever weapon synergizes best with the current artifact of the month). Either way, it's only an illusion of choice. In these cases we'd be better off if the load-out was purely cosmetic.
The only times the loadout is potentially a meaningfull choice is (provided the choices are somewhat balanced of course
)
1) when special abilities are attached to the choices (e.g. flamethrowers v.s. bow on a stegadon)
2) when the weapons fill vastly different niches (e.g. bow v.s. sword on kurnoth hunter)
3) when it comes with significantly different pointcosts (e.g. solar engine v.s. ark of sotek on a bastiladon)
The best way to implement this would imho be via a keyword that you give to the relevant units, idunno, say <MASSED RANKS> or something. This would make it easier to balance things, because you could just take away the keyword from problematic units if needed. It'd also allows for potential combined arms units when two units share the keyword (e.g. saurus warrior unit #2 can join ranks with unit #1, or an oldblood joining ranks) which would be interesting, you could even use this to create temporary hordes, which imho would be a very interesting thing to explore.
It'd also allow you to create a keyword for things like the lumineth wardens, were fighting in 3 ranks might even be acceptable. And lastly it'd allow you to give the keyword to some bigger models should that be something that would be interesting (e.g. SCE vindicators might make sense)
I doubt it'll happen. Especially the more sophisticated implementation with keywords and potentially interesting interactions between units I just mentioned. But I hope that at least some part of this rule carries over.
