Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Dudeface wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
You have no argument to support keeping a laspistol in a world where bolt pistols are 0, I have an argument for upgrading to a 1 pt bolt pistol. It doesn't really matter how bad my argument is as long as I have an argument and you have none I win by definition unless you can prove that my argument is illogical and you can't because Strength 4 is inarguably better than Strength 3.

You're right, that upgrade which will on average return 0.2 points of value at best is definitely of significant value to your force and you will surely win games based on your ability to buy over priced 1pt bolt pistols. I surrender.

If you want a challenge, price the grenade launcher.

To add on this - when an upgrade return 0.2 pts on average then pricing it at 0pts is actually more balanced than pricing it at 1pts. It is less undercosted at 0pts than it is overcosted at 1pts. That it is straight up upgrade over laspistol only proves, that said laspistol is irrelevant for the outcome of the game. The part of "bad game design" is that no impact elements even exist in this game in the first place and can be manipulated by false "options".

Also, so many levels of silly here...

A) yes, you can have a missile launcher, heavy bolter, plasma cannon, and las cannon all cost the same and therefore be accounted for in the net cost of a tactical squad... give the missile launcher two decent options (one anti swarm and other anti armor), make the heavy bolter better than that at anti swarm and the las cannon better at anti armor... if the plasma cannon can find a way to be better at anti heavy infantry than the lascannon and the missile launcher... then all choices have an opportunity cost and do not need different points...

this logic can extend to so many units

but

B) this does not mean that ALL options would be only be equipment opportunity cost and clearly a sergeant with a plasma pistol and a powerfist is better than a bolt pistol and chainsword... however... if the unit gets a "once a game" reaction or something equivalent, then you could have it be
1- take the chain sword and bolt pistol and get to use the squad reaction x2
2- take a powerfist and the bolt pistol
3- get the plasma pistol AND the powersword
so, again, no need for upgrade points

EDIT: and yes, points are for game balance, 100%

nou wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
You have no argument to support keeping a laspistol in a world where bolt pistols are 0, I have an argument for upgrading to a 1 pt bolt pistol. It doesn't really matter how bad my argument is as long as I have an argument and you have none I win by definition unless you can prove that my argument is illogical and you can't because Strength 4 is inarguably better than Strength 3.

You're right, that upgrade which will on average return 0.2 points of value at best is definitely of significant value to your force and you will surely win games based on your ability to buy over priced 1pt bolt pistols. I surrender.

If you want a challenge, price the grenade launcher.

To add on this - when an upgrade return 0.2 pts on average then pricing it at 0pts is actually more balanced than pricing it at 1pts. It is less undercosted at 0pts than it is overcosted at 1pts. That it is straight up upgrade over laspistol only proves, that said laspistol is irrelevant for the outcome of the game. The part of "bad game design" is that no impact elements even exist in this game in the first place and can be manipulated by false "options".

If you go to the store with a hundred dollars and buy a 20 dollar Toblerone but the store doesn't have 80 dollars in cash do you get the Toblerone for free?

 vict0988 wrote:

nou wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
You have no argument to support keeping a laspistol in a world where bolt pistols are 0, I have an argument for upgrading to a 1 pt bolt pistol. It doesn't really matter how bad my argument is as long as I have an argument and you have none I win by definition unless you can prove that my argument is illogical and you can't because Strength 4 is inarguably better than Strength 3.

You're right, that upgrade which will on average return 0.2 points of value at best is definitely of significant value to your force and you will surely win games based on your ability to buy over priced 1pt bolt pistols. I surrender.

If you want a challenge, price the grenade launcher.

To add on this - when an upgrade return 0.2 pts on average then pricing it at 0pts is actually more balanced than pricing it at 1pts. It is less undercosted at 0pts than it is overcosted at 1pts. That it is straight up upgrade over laspistol only proves, that said laspistol is irrelevant for the outcome of the game. The part of "bad game design" is that no impact elements even exist in this game in the first place and can be manipulated by false "options".

If you go to the store with a hundred dollars and buy a 20 dollar Toblerone but the store doesn't have 80 dollars in cash do you get the Toblerone for free?

No, you're just not getting given any change.

 vict0988 wrote:

nou wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
You have no argument to support keeping a laspistol in a world where bolt pistols are 0, I have an argument for upgrading to a 1 pt bolt pistol. It doesn't really matter how bad my argument is as long as I have an argument and you have none I win by definition unless you can prove that my argument is illogical and you can't because Strength 4 is inarguably better than Strength 3.

You're right, that upgrade which will on average return 0.2 points of value at best is definitely of significant value to your force and you will surely win games based on your ability to buy over priced 1pt bolt pistols. I surrender.

If you want a challenge, price the grenade launcher.

To add on this - when an upgrade return 0.2 pts on average then pricing it at 0pts is actually more balanced than pricing it at 1pts. It is less undercosted at 0pts than it is overcosted at 1pts. That it is straight up upgrade over laspistol only proves, that said laspistol is irrelevant for the outcome of the game. The part of "bad game design" is that no impact elements even exist in this game in the first place and can be manipulated by false "options".

If you go to the store with a hundred dollars and buy a 20 dollar Toblerone but the store doesn't have 80 dollars in cash do you get the Toblerone for free?

I'd be using a debit/cc, so there'd be no need for change to begin with....

ccs wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

nou wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
You have no argument to support keeping a laspistol in a world where bolt pistols are 0, I have an argument for upgrading to a 1 pt bolt pistol. It doesn't really matter how bad my argument is as long as I have an argument and you have none I win by definition unless you can prove that my argument is illogical and you can't because Strength 4 is inarguably better than Strength 3.

You're right, that upgrade which will on average return 0.2 points of value at best is definitely of significant value to your force and you will surely win games based on your ability to buy over priced 1pt bolt pistols. I surrender.

If you want a challenge, price the grenade launcher.

To add on this - when an upgrade return 0.2 pts on average then pricing it at 0pts is actually more balanced than pricing it at 1pts. It is less undercosted at 0pts than it is overcosted at 1pts. That it is straight up upgrade over laspistol only proves, that said laspistol is irrelevant for the outcome of the game. The part of "bad game design" is that no impact elements even exist in this game in the first place and can be manipulated by false "options".

If you go to the store with a hundred dollars and buy a 20 dollar Toblerone but the store doesn't have 80 dollars in cash do you get the Toblerone for free?

I'd be using a debit/cc, so there'd be no need for change to begin with....

People still use cash ya know

EviscerationPlague wrote:

ccs wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

nou wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
You have no argument to support keeping a laspistol in a world where bolt pistols are 0, I have an argument for upgrading to a 1 pt bolt pistol. It doesn't really matter how bad my argument is as long as I have an argument and you have none I win by definition unless you can prove that my argument is illogical and you can't because Strength 4 is inarguably better than Strength 3.

You're right, that upgrade which will on average return 0.2 points of value at best is definitely of significant value to your force and you will surely win games based on your ability to buy over priced 1pt bolt pistols. I surrender.

If you want a challenge, price the grenade launcher.

To add on this - when an upgrade return 0.2 pts on average then pricing it at 0pts is actually more balanced than pricing it at 1pts. It is less undercosted at 0pts than it is overcosted at 1pts. That it is straight up upgrade over laspistol only proves, that said laspistol is irrelevant for the outcome of the game. The part of "bad game design" is that no impact elements even exist in this game in the first place and can be manipulated by false "options".

If you go to the store with a hundred dollars and buy a 20 dollar Toblerone but the store doesn't have 80 dollars in cash do you get the Toblerone for free?

I'd be using a debit/cc, so there'd be no need for change to begin with....

People still use cash ya know

People still use absurd false equivalences, ya know.

nou wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
You have no argument to support keeping a laspistol in a world where bolt pistols are 0, I have an argument for upgrading to a 1 pt bolt pistol. It doesn't really matter how bad my argument is as long as I have an argument and you have none I win by definition unless you can prove that my argument is illogical and you can't because Strength 4 is inarguably better than Strength 3.

You're right, that upgrade which will on average return 0.2 points of value at best is definitely of significant value to your force and you will surely win games based on your ability to buy over priced 1pt bolt pistols. I surrender.

If you want a challenge, price the grenade launcher.

To add on this - when an upgrade return 0.2 pts on average then pricing it at 0pts is actually more balanced than pricing it at 1pts. It is less undercosted at 0pts than it is overcosted at 1pts. That it is straight up upgrade over laspistol only proves, that said laspistol is irrelevant for the outcome of the game. The part of "bad game design" is that no impact elements even exist in this game in the first place and can be manipulated by false "options".

This is just silly.

The point is that if you make two things cost the same, and one is better than the other, then obviously there's going to be a heavy favoring towards the better option.

But you can also just make the one better option cost a point or two, and if you feel its not worth a point or two, adjust it so that it's worth the extra price.

Back in pre 8th, a Bolt Pistol had the AP to ignore 5+ armor, and also had a S value to hurt units that the S3 just couldn't. (T7 and AV10) It was a more meaningful upgrade.

...or... you make it balanced for opportunity costs... drives me nuts that when you guys get into these silly binary arguments you can't conceive that third and fourth options exist.

I find it absurd that a gun is expected to get its points back in a single shot.

A 20% return for a non-optimal target should be the GOAL. Otherwise you end up with an absurd situation where an entire army makes up all of its weapon's worth of points in a single shooting phase....

boy that sounds like an exciting game

Wait no all weapons should be free, that will fix lethality for sure.

 Insectum7 wrote:

nou wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
You have no argument to support keeping a laspistol in a world where bolt pistols are 0, I have an argument for upgrading to a 1 pt bolt pistol. It doesn't really matter how bad my argument is as long as I have an argument and you have none I win by definition unless you can prove that my argument is illogical and you can't because Strength 4 is inarguably better than Strength 3.

You're right, that upgrade which will on average return 0.2 points of value at best is definitely of significant value to your force and you will surely win games based on your ability to buy over priced 1pt bolt pistols. I surrender.

If you want a challenge, price the grenade launcher.

To add on this - when an upgrade return 0.2 pts on average then pricing it at 0pts is actually more balanced than pricing it at 1pts. It is less undercosted at 0pts than it is overcosted at 1pts. That it is straight up upgrade over laspistol only proves, that said laspistol is irrelevant for the outcome of the game. The part of "bad game design" is that no impact elements even exist in this game in the first place and can be manipulated by false "options".

This is just silly.

The point is that if you make two things cost the same, and one is better than the other, then obviously there's going to be a heavy favoring towards the better option.

But you can also just make the one better option cost a point or two, and if you feel its not worth a point or two, adjust it so that it's worth the extra price.

Back in pre 8th, a Bolt Pistol had the AP to ignore 5+ armor, and also had a S value to hurt units that the S3 just couldn't. (T7 and AV10) It was a more meaningful upgrade.

It still has value via the bonus vs T3, 4, 6, and 7. Those are very common profiles. Ignoring that, .2 return is reasonable for a mere pistol.

A guard sergeant shooting a laspistol into a marine does 1/2*1/3*1/3*9=0.5 points worth of damage. Which for his 6.5 points is a return of 7.7%.

With a bolt pistol he does 1/2*1/2*1/3*9=0.75 points. Which for his 6.5 points is a return of 11.5%. This goes down to 10% if the Guard Sergeant is now 7.5 points.

Its worth noting how paying the point impacts things the other way. A marine shooting back would get a 21.4% return into the guard sergeant at 6.5 points - rising to 24.69% if that sergeant were 7.5 points.

In the context of 40k - and certainly the more lethal elements of 40k - 7.7%, 10% and 11.5% returns are all awful. So awful in fact that the idea they are meaningfully impacting a game isn't credible.

But yes - 9th has certainly suffered from lethality - and perhaps more specifically "glasshammerification". The only real solution to this is to have upgrades bring significant defensive buffs. Which, with the exception of storm shields, have been rare. If both players pay points to upgrade their offensive potential, the units will become more fragile. There is also the issue that in a game where you can get units that have say 40%+ returns into things, you would be silly to pay for a weapon upgrade that expects to produce only 20% of its value. Just spend the points on more guys - who can have said 40% returns, and also bring toughness, wounds, bodies to be on the board etc. This in turn means weapon upgrades have to boost output by more than say 40% to be attractive, which is where we spiral upwards into the lethality problem.

There's also I think the psychological issue which explains why GW tends to undervalue damage and overvalue toughness. People like killing stuff. Its no fun to blaze your whole army at something only for everything to bounce. This is why - more than any mathematics - people hate 3++ saves and to an extent invuls, FNPs etc in general. Because if your opponent's dice are vaguely above average (and they don't have to be dramatically so with a 3++) there's nothing much you can do.

If only there were other ways units could interact with each other on the tabletop.

Some kind of obscurant, perhaps - maybe the Space Marine Obscurant Kinematic Emitter, S.M.O.K.E.

Or something that could force the enemy to keep their heads down, like the Precision Intimidation Neuralizer and Neutralization Instrument for Nullification of Ground-pounders (P.I.N.N.I.NG).

Or maybe something that suppresses the enemy and covers allies - like covering fire or suppressing fire but more Sci-Fi ofc, lest we consider ourselves historical gamers.

You could have units have different durability values from different directions, maybe the Frontal Ablative Ceramite Invulnerability Negator - Governed. (F.A.C.I.N.-G). That could restore maneuver.

I think comparing points returns is silly.

The Bolt Pistol is better than the Laspistol, therefore there should be a cost in taking it. If there isn't, what reasons are there to not take the Bolt Pistol?

Tyel wrote:
A guard sergeant shooting a laspistol into a marine does 1/2*1/3*1/3*9=0.5 points worth of damage. Which for his 6.5 points is a return of 7.7%.

With a bolt pistol he does 1/2*1/2*1/3*9=0.75 points. Which for his 6.5 points is a return of 11.5%. This goes down to 10% if the Guard Sergeant is now 7.5 points.

Its worth noting how paying the point impacts things the other way. A marine shooting back would get a 21.4% return into the guard sergeant at 6.5 points - rising to 24.69% if that sergeant were 7.5 points.

In the context of 40k - and certainly the more lethal elements of 40k - 7.7%, 10% and 11.5% returns are all awful. So awful in fact that the idea they are meaningfully impacting a game isn't credible.

Your percentages in regards to return are misleading for a couple of reasons:
1. Y'all are STILL only looking at a Marine to shoot at and are avoiding everything else because it proved your point wrong. The rebuttal of "but they're the most common army" means nothing to me because not all weapons are Marine friendly. That's the nature of the game.
2. If a Sarge was worth 1 point and the Pistol was another, the Marine is getting an extra 50% return, but you're not looking at the whole package of the squad + army entirety.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think comparing points returns is silly.

The Bolt Pistol is better than the Laspistol, therefore there should be a cost in taking it. If there isn't, what reasons are there to not take the Bolt Pistol?

At the same time, the value you get from the cost should be equal to the cost.

So how do you set a cost on something that is a very marginal improvement?

A Guardman gains 33-50% improvement in offensive firepower with a Bolt Pistol versus a Laspistol. However, that damage output over 5 rounds of shooting (good luck doing that with either pistol) is:

Laspistol: 0.83 Wounds versus T3 Sv 5+, 0.27 Wounds versus T4 Sv 3+

Bolt Pistol: 1.11 Wounds versus T3 Sv 5+, 0.42 Wounds versus T4 Sv 3+

So how many points is that actually worth?

I suppose an alternative idea would be to even out the weapons in some way so that they are of equal value...

I do think that the Laspistol vs. Bolt Pistol is something you could have just even out with statlines or not care much about.

I don't think that Bolter vs. Plasma Gun is something that should even out or not worry about. A Plasma Gun is offensively equal or superior in every way to a Bolter, even on safe mode. That should cost points.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think comparing points returns is silly.

The Bolt Pistol is better than the Laspistol, therefore there should be a cost in taking it. If there isn't, what reasons are there to not take the Bolt Pistol?

You take the laspistol because you think it looks cooler (at least that's what I do with my Imperial Guard), and, quite frankly, the difference in output is so small as to be insignificant.

Make if free, make it cost a point, whatever. Granular point systems are fine, if they're not too complicated, and free upgrades are fine, if they have enough internal balance. Just don't mix and match them, which, of course, is what GW does as they vaciliate between design paradigms over the course of every edition.

Value is not always defined as 'points of models killed on average', though. In a game that isn't so overtuned in lethality that armies get wiped by turn 3-4, expecting less than 100% return is okay.

And in this case, I think overpricing the bolt pistol relative to its utility in the hands of a generic Guardsman would be the right move anyways- it's not a weapon every sergeant should have; but for an officer it makes sense. So ideally, the cost should be somewhere that it's not a great idea for line squads, but a decent upgrade for officers who might get more use out of it.

But fundamentally, there are really two options being discussed here:

1. You make bolt pistols 0pts, and then there's no reason to take anything other than bolt pistols. Every laspistol counts-as a bolt pistol because having your models function strictly worse because of how you modeled them is silly.

Result: Every model has bolt pistols.

2. You make bolt pistols 1pt, and then there's little incentive to take bolt pistols as an upgrade. Maybe someone who wants a slightly more effective officer spends a point here and there, or buys a few with the last couple of points to hit 2K.

Result: Most models have laspistols and maybe a few have bolt pistols.

I'll take #2 any day of the week because at least there is a choice and some variety, even if nine times out of ten it isn't worth it.

And if the difference between the two is so irrelevant that it's not worth putting even a single point on that upgrade, maybe they should just say that Guard bolt pistols count as laspistols due to the smaller caliber compared to Astartes ones and be done with it. Why bother treating them any differently if the gameplay effect is no negligible that it isn't even worth a single point?

But this is a red herring argument anyways, because when it comes to things like power swords vs chainswords, or grenade launchers vs plasma guns, there is far more room for appropriate costing than trying to peg a bolt pistol at either zero or one.

 JNAProductions wrote:
A Plasma Gun is offensively equal or superior in every way to a Bolter, even on safe mode. That should cost points.

Yes, it should and it would certainly be easier with more granular points.

However, does it materially impact the game in a meaningful way? If not, then is the purpose of paying points simply a psychological pat on the back for 'making a smart choice'?

The idea that a weapon has to earn its points back is a false dilemma in the first place. And attempting to apply the Las/Boltpistol issue to other weapons with far more stack difference is borderline dishonest.

No, Bolt Pistols aren't that much better than Laspistols, but they are better. Therefore they cannot just be free.

Option 2, as described above, is the best option in this situation.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
A Plasma Gun is offensively equal or superior in every way to a Bolter, even on safe mode. That should cost points.

Yes, it should and it would certainly be easier with more granular points.

However, does it materially impact the game in a meaningful way? If not, then is the purpose of paying points simply a psychological pat on the back for 'making a smart choice'?

A squad of Marines with five Bolters does (assuming no rerolls, and moving to achieve range) slightly over half a point of damage to another MEQ squad, outside of cover.
Swap one Bolter for a Plasma gun and the Bolters now do slightly under half a point, but the Plasma does about two fifths of a point of damage on its own on safe mode, and nearly an entire point of damage on its own if Overcharged.

Going from 5/9 (15/27) to 22/27 isn't a huge boost, but it's not nothing.
Going from 5/9 to 35/27 is a pretty damn big boost. That's more than double damage-and you retain most of the output even as guys die, since most of it is holed up in one guy.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
A Plasma Gun is offensively equal or superior in every way to a Bolter, even on safe mode. That should cost points.

Yes, it should and it would certainly be easier with more granular points.

However, does it materially impact the game in a meaningful way?

Both its average and its potential impact is substantially more than a bolter, yes. Some hot rolling and it can kill two Marines a single turn, for a return of . . . 40 points for Intercessors? And its liklihood of doing that is far higher than a Bolter causing 2 wounds.

Why GW decided Sternguard can just get them for free is beyond me . . .

Also, what catbarf said.

People seem to be focusing on "return on investment" and not on the potential impact.

If I take a Dev Squad with 4 Lascannons and spend all game plinking away at a unit of Gaunts, then I'm not getting a return on investment. The weapons would be worth far less than if I had taken 4 Heavy Bolters. Against such a target, the Lascannons should be worth less, and the Heavy Bolters more.

But that's not how things work. The potential those Lascannons have to cause damage is considerable, and you should pay for that, and you should pay more for that than something that perhaps has a similar role but not the same potential for destruction.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
People seem to be focusing on "return on investment" and not on the potential impact.

If I take a Dev Squad with 4 Lascannons and spend all game plinking away at a unit of Gaunts, then I'm not getting a return on investment. The weapons would be worth far less than if I had taken 4 Heavy Bolters. Against such a target, the Lascannons should be worth less, and the Heavy Bolters more.

Why do you think they keep ignoring anything but the T4 3+ profile? It doesn't fit their narrative.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
People seem to be focusing on "return on investment" and not on the potential impact.

If I take a Dev Squad with 4 Lascannons and spend all game plinking away at a unit of Gaunts, then I'm not getting a return on investment. The weapons would be worth far less than if I had taken 4 Heavy Bolters. Against such a target, the Lascannons should be worth less, and the Heavy Bolters more.

Why do you think they keep ignoring anything but the T4 3+ profile? It doesn't fit their narrative.

Because this site consistently tells you that the t4 3+ profile is what the game pivots around and is so common you plan to have to beat that first before anything else.

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
People seem to be focusing on "return on investment" and not on the potential impact.

If I take a Dev Squad with 4 Lascannons and spend all game plinking away at a unit of Gaunts, then I'm not getting a return on investment. The weapons would be worth far less than if I had taken 4 Heavy Bolters. Against such a target, the Lascannons should be worth less, and the Heavy Bolters more.

Why do you think they keep ignoring anything but the T4 3+ profile? It doesn't fit their narrative.

Because this site consistently tells you that the t4 3+ profile is what the game pivots around and is so common you plan to have to beat that first before anything else.

It's not wrong though. The T4 3+ profile makes up half of the factions in the game, and about half of tournament entrants in larger tournaments (I've noticed from the predictions thread that smaller tournaments trend towards having more non-MEQ lists, not sure of the exact reason behind that).

So if you can reasonably expect half of your opponents to be T4 3+ W2, why wouldn't you account for that when list building?

 Afrodactyl wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
People seem to be focusing on "return on investment" and not on the potential impact.

If I take a Dev Squad with 4 Lascannons and spend all game plinking away at a unit of Gaunts, then I'm not getting a return on investment. The weapons would be worth far less than if I had taken 4 Heavy Bolters. Against such a target, the Lascannons should be worth less, and the Heavy Bolters more.

Why do you think they keep ignoring anything but the T4 3+ profile? It doesn't fit their narrative.

Because this site consistently tells you that the t4 3+ profile is what the game pivots around and is so common you plan to have to beat that first before anything else.

It's not wrong though. The T4 3+ profile makes up half of the factions in the game, and about half of tournament entrants in larger tournaments (I've noticed from the predictions thread that smaller tournaments trend towards having more non-MEQ lists, not sure of the exact reason behind that).

So if you can reasonably expect half of your opponents to be T4 3+ W2, why wouldn't you account for that when list building?

Because GW has at this point spent more than a decade on touting stuff like the mythical 'take all comers list' and people don't reflect on the fact that even if you build such a list, it's just the smarter move to weigh 'all comers' by their general frequency of appearance. It's just building to the meta, but that got its own slur in the form of 'list tailoring', 'netlisting' and whatever. Bad ruleswriting leads to stale metagames with degenerate solutions (we all know our stories about bikernob deathstars / wound alloc exploiters, smash-captains, FZORGL-princes or triple heldrakes, whatever) that need specific solutions to hack, but in general the smart move in a totally 'blind' tournament situation is to go for the most ubiquitous profile in the whole game.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I find it absurd that a gun is expected to get its points back in a single shot.

In game where stuff dies as easily as things do in w40k, a lot of things don't get to fire more then 1-2 times. This makes single shot weapons really bad, same with weapons that have random damage done. It also makes stuff that can survive to make more then 1-2 shoting runs very powerful. Open topped skimmers with invs saves and powerful melee units inside, have proven over and over again that a unit that can do something more then once is a very good one, and such a unit that can be taken multiple times, or be the litteral entire army makes the army very good.

The rest is GW design. Lets say GW makes their most optimal IG build in a such a way that it has a 20-30 wiggle room. a 1 pts bolter on multiple sgts isn't a bad option then, as otherwise the points could be potentialy unused. But paying 15pts for a power weapon on a 20-25pts model that probably will never see melee, make the melee option a non existent one. And changing it to 10 or even 5, if the army has no free points the squeez those options in, won't change it. There had to be some serious and game impactful rules over lap to make someone consider taking such an upgrade.

 Afrodactyl wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
People seem to be focusing on "return on investment" and not on the potential impact.

If I take a Dev Squad with 4 Lascannons and spend all game plinking away at a unit of Gaunts, then I'm not getting a return on investment. The weapons would be worth far less than if I had taken 4 Heavy Bolters. Against such a target, the Lascannons should be worth less, and the Heavy Bolters more.

Why do you think they keep ignoring anything but the T4 3+ profile? It doesn't fit their narrative.

Because this site consistently tells you that the t4 3+ profile is what the game pivots around and is so common you plan to have to beat that first before anything else.

It's not wrong though. The T4 3+ profile makes up half of the factions in the game, and about half of tournament entrants in larger tournaments (I've noticed from the predictions thread that smaller tournaments trend towards having more non-MEQ lists, not sure of the exact reason behind that).

So if you can reasonably expect half of your opponents to be T4 3+ W2, why wouldn't you account for that when list building?

Do you want GW to balance anti-horde weapons around being competitive against Marines? That'd be a good way to ensure that only Marines get used in tournaments, because anything without a Marine profile would get annihilated by 1Damage weapons without AP-3.