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.

So the game should rather be build around hard contering the marines, a type of army which is played , in its multiple variation, but majority of all players? We had that in 8th and we had that in 9th. It is not a fun expiriance for marine players, and creates this odd situation where weaker then marines armies are more resilient, because they suffer fewer losses per model from high AP high D weapon that are multi shot.

It's fine to look at the T4 3+ 2w profile, you just got to look at it the right way. A Bolt Pistol is an additional 50%(!) more effective over the Las Pistol against one of the most common profiles of the game. For such a massive increase, it should cost something.

 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.

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.

I have noticed that the entire "cost" discussion is basically just Marines arguing about Marines.

Does feel a bit like we live in a two-tiered system. Marines playing their own little game and then the rest which is just happy to be here.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
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.

Using more mechanics that create visual obstructions is fine.

Pinning is and was a stupid mechanic. It's either completely worthless because of fearless or w/e, or functionally the same as killing the unit in a lot of scenarios, just in a way that's really, really irritating. Your average 40k unit gets to shoot maybe 3 times per game (deepstrike, obscuring, hiding to avoid first turn fire, being mulched by another shooting unit, combat units making it into your lines, etc.) losing one, two, or all of them to the guys just being too piss scared to shoot is really annoying. It's even worse for melee units that are well and truly just dead at that point.

Something for covering or suppressing fire would be interesting, but it can't fall into the same trap pinning is in of 'I can just suppress your units and make them useless the whole game, so they might as well be dead.'

Anybody still arguing for facings at this point is just taking the piss. They offered nothing in previous editions, they'd offer nothing in the future. If you truly believe they incentivized 'maneuver' then I would also like to talk to you about this super awesome crypto currency investment I just heard about.

Facings always fall into one of 3 categories: 1. Facings make no significant difference in the difficulty of killing vehicles so they get ignored. 2. Facings make a significant difference in the difficulty of killing vehicles, so any vehicle that isn't putting it's arse against a board edge for the entire game is either completely worthless or has to be dirt cheap. 3. Facings WOULD make a difference in killing vehicles...if anybody BROUGHT any. 7th edition vehicles were so bad (only partially because of facing, but it was a contributing factor) that Space Marines could bring dozens of them FOR FREE and they STILL weren't any good.

And all of that is ignoring problems like, exactly where is the line between 'front' and 'side' on weird shaped stuff like knights, night scythes, venomcrawlers, etc? Even if you can agree, what about conversions? Do you just ban anything that obscures the arc? And don't say 'oh this wouldn't be an issue!' They released 3 different 'official' facing arcs for knights and all three of them sent the community (and dakka especially) into seething nerd rages.

It depends on what you mean about potential.

I don't think you should pay for a lascannon on the grounds that you could hit, you could wound, they could fail the save and you could roll 6 for damage. Yes all that could happen - but its the probability of it doing so - versus the probabilities of everything else in 40k - that determines relative value. In this way lascannons don't lose value just because you are playing someone running mass Termgants or gain value if someone is running lots of tanks. Balance has to be a holistic thing, not matchup to matchup (let alone unit to unit).

I mean if MEQ comparisons upset, lets shoot guard with guard.
1/2*1/2*2/3*6.5=1.08333
1/2*2/3*2/3*6.5=1.44444
So about 0.36 of a point difference. In theory.

But in practice, what does this really mean?

Well the odds of causing a wound with the laspistol from guard into guard are 1/6. The odds of causing a wound with the bolt pistol are 4/18.

Which is basically saying if you got to fire your pistol 18 times into guardsmen, you'd expect to do an extra wound - 4 rather than 3.

So lets say you have idk, 6 squads in your list (not sure that's standard in Russ meta but go with it). And of them, 3 Guard sergeants manage to even fire their pistols in anger during an average game. Well over 6 games you would expect to get those 18 shots off, and in turn that one extra wound through. For Marines you'd need 36 shots to expect to get that extra wound through - so we are talking about 12 games.

So what value is that? Surely its close to zero. Most of the time it isn't going to add up to anything at all. And - dare I say it - most of the times it does happen, it probably doesn't matter. Its hard to believe you'd ever look back on a game and go "remember when I shot my sergeant's laspistol, but I rolled a 3 to wound. If I'd had a bolt pistol I'd have done a wound and maybe you'd have failed the save and maybe I'd have killed one extra guardsmen and then I'd have won" etc. If you have this itch that says you have to optimise for mathhammer take the bolt pistols. In practice however as observed, its scarcely going to matter. I don't think you'd ever be able to identify a Guard win being down to the fact the list had a tiny number of bolt pistols over laspistols.

The comparison with the Plasma Gun is reasonable because it shows a gun that does matter - or at least does in a micro sense. Its stats are far better than a lasgun or boltgun - and in turn its expected return into a range of targets is much higher. If its free you are therefore moving the squad holding it up the power curve. Its clearly better than a naked squad without such equipment. Whether this is so obviously the case with other special weapons can be debated. The question you are left with is "does this push up the power curve enough to be worth worrying about/imbalance the game?" Haggling over a grenade launcher being 5 points, or 3 points, or zero may not add to very much.

Because its the macro scale that matters. Which is tied up with the wider discussion of what balance means to you. If an upgrade is not obviously improving your chances of winning a game, why should it be worth any points? If say Marine win% is reasonable (if...) then its unclear "free stuff" is breaking the game. The "free stuff" is paid for in the price you pay for the unit itself. Sure, someone who doesn't have any special weapons in their collection is worse off - but they can just go buy some. Someone who just wants to run a carpet of naked guys would be worse off - which I think is the only fair criticism really. But there's plenty of things GW says "no, you shouldn't do this, sorry" - so I don't think this is the biggest imposition. I'm sorry your 10 man strong Dev squad is more inefficient with this change - but I'm not clear it was ever that efficient to begin with, and in terms of winning/losing games I'm not sure it matters.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 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.

Sorry I thought we were on the character thing with people talking laspistol / boltgun.

A squad is a whole different story, because you simply must take those upgrades. Sorry for the confusion.

Bolt pistol enjoyers would be better off in a world where plasma pistols cost more than bolt pistols, because there will be a reason to take bolt pistols. Right now there isn't. So all this gnashing of teeth about wasting less than 10 pts in a 2k list is completely silly, since you're effectively wasting at least as many pts by not taking plasma pistols currently, since upgrading a bolt pistol to a plasma pistol is worth at least a whole point, while a bolt pistol is worth at least a fraction of a point.

@Tyel 1 is the closest whole number to 0, so when I say bolt pistols should be 1 pt I am acknowledging the value they bring as being close to 0.

If you don't think an extra S matters why take a bolt pistol?

Just fething raise the points on everything...

make the standard game size 40000pts, keep the same number of model that we currently have now. Poof, now your "1pts bolt pistol" can actually be priced correctly because the minimum points increment isnt as big a % of your total force.

 vict0988 wrote:
Bolt pistol enjoyers would be better off in a world where plasma pistols cost more than bolt pistols, because there will be a reason to take bolt pistols. Right now there isn't. So all this gnashing of teeth about wasting less than 10 pts in a 2k list is completely silly, since you're effectively wasting at least as many pts by not taking plasma pistols currently, since upgrading a bolt pistol to a plasma pistol is worth at least a whole point, while a bolt pistol is worth at least a fraction of a point.

@Tyel 1 is the closest whole number to 0, so when I say bolt pistols should be 1 pt I am acknowledging the value they bring as being close to 0.

If you don't think an extra S matters why take a bolt pistol?

You do know that 0 is a whole number?

Oh, you mean the closest whole number greater than 0 is 1, because you don't want to round 0.4 to 0

As others have said, if the Bolt Pistol has no meaningful chance of impacting the game, it shouldn't cost anything. The best thing the rules should do is account for that by making some other rules balance to make the value of the Las Pistol more comparable to that of the higher strength Bolt Pistol and then let the player choose between two equally valuable choices.

ERJAK wrote:
Pinning is and was a stupid mechanic. It's either completely worthless because of fearless or w/e, or functionally the same as killing the unit in a lot of scenarios, just in a way that's really, really irritating. Your average 40k unit gets to shoot maybe 3 times per game (deepstrike, obscuring, hiding to avoid first turn fire, being mulched by another shooting unit, combat units making it into your lines, etc.) losing one, two, or all of them to the guys just being too piss scared to shoot is really annoying. It's even worse for melee units that are well and truly just dead at that point.

Something for covering or suppressing fire would be interesting, but it can't fall into the same trap pinning is in of 'I can just suppress your units and make them useless the whole game, so they might as well be dead.'

Pinning is an important part of HH2.0 and it works pretty well there. It's an essential support tool for preventing units from reacting, slowing an advance to maintain distance, and establishing fire superiority. Because it does take a unit out of commission (mostly- they can still move and still Snap Fire) for a full turn, it is pretty hard to pull off, but certainly easier than wiping the unit.

It only results in a unit being useless the whole game if you keep it in such a position as to keep being shot by the same pinning weapon, and keep failing its morale checks, while making no effort to neutralize the pinning threat. At that point, that's user error.

I would rather have a unit out of action for one turn than out of action for the rest of the game, and the current high lethality is in part a result of players expecting things to happen, but there currently being no way to interact with the enemy besides killing them. Describing it as 'irritating' or 'annoying' suggests to me that you're thinking of morale effects as some kind of irrelevant side mechanic grafted onto your game, rather than another mechanism of damage alongside actually removing models.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Just fething raise the points on everything...

make the standard game size 40000pts, keep the same number of model that we currently have now. Poof, now your "1pts bolt pistol" can actually be priced correctly because the minimum points increment isnt as big a % of your total force.

The other option is to accept there are some levels of granularity we just don't need. The laspistol/bolt pistol discussion is a perfect example. The bolt pistol is clearly better, so it should really cost more to take it, otherwise it's just the default option and the las pistol has no real purpose. But the actual increase in effectiveness is miniscule, especially for a pistol weapon that realistically gets to shoot about 2-3 times per game. There's not enough of a distinction between the two weapons to justify keeping both, IMO. One approach would just be to say Guard characters have "Officer Siderams" and allow them to be modelled as las or bolt pistols as the player sees fit. Plasma pistols are clearly better again, and sufficiently impactful to require a cost to upgrade. The question then becomes, which options are impactful enough to still require pointing separately.

Grav guns/pistols were mentioned earlier as candidates for removal from the game, and I think this wouldn't be a terrible decision for very similar reasons. They no longer have a niche that they fill. In that case, removing the weapon is probably fine, especially if nobody uses them anyway.

Slipspace wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Just fething raise the points on everything...

make the standard game size 40000pts, keep the same number of model that we currently have now. Poof, now your "1pts bolt pistol" can actually be priced correctly because the minimum points increment isnt as big a % of your total force.

The other option is to accept there are some levels of granularity we just don't need. The laspistol/bolt pistol discussion is a perfect example. The bolt pistol is clearly better, so it should really cost more to take it, otherwise it's just the default option and the las pistol has no real purpose. But the actual increase in effectiveness is miniscule, especially for a pistol weapon that realistically gets to shoot about 2-3 times per game. There's not enough of a distinction between the two weapons to justify keeping both, IMO. One approach would just be to say Guard characters have "Officer Siderams" and allow them to be modelled as las or bolt pistols as the player sees fit. Plasma pistols are clearly better again, and sufficiently impactful to require a cost to upgrade. The question then becomes, which options are impactful enough to still require pointing separately.

Grav guns/pistols were mentioned earlier as candidates for removal from the game, and I think this wouldn't be a terrible decision for very similar reasons. They no longer have a niche that they fill. In that case, removing the weapon is probably fine, especially if nobody uses them anyway.

true, GW is still treating 40k as if it was a skirmish game where individual guns need to be represented.

 Eldarsif 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.

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.

I have noticed that the entire "cost" discussion is basically just Marines arguing about Marines.

Does feel a bit like we live in a two-tiered system. Marines playing their own little game and then the rest which is just happy to be here.

The notion of NPC armies becomes stronger again.

 Strg Alt wrote:

The notion of NPC armies becomes stronger again.

stop with the persecution fetish..
we're using space marines to calculate averages because theyre the most common defensive profile.
Oh, and the bolt pistol vs las pistol debate is about infantry squads from Astra militarum, not space marines

 alextroy wrote:
As others have said, if the Bolt Pistol has no meaningful chance of impacting the game, it shouldn't cost anything.

If it's such a pointless choice that it doesn't even amount to 1/2000th of your list, not even 0.05% of your combat power, it probably shouldn't exist at all.

I mean, can we agree that choices that have no meaningful chance of impacting the game don't add value? That if you do get to make a choice, it should have some tangible effect? I feel like that's a pretty basic expectation.

Tyel wrote:
It depends on what you mean about potential.

I don't think you should pay for a lascannon on the grounds that you could hit, you could wound, they could fail the save and you could roll 6 for damage. Yes all that could happen - but its the probability of it doing so - versus the probabilities of everything else in 40k - that determines relative value. In this way lascannons don't lose value just because you are playing someone running mass Termgants or gain value if someone is running lots of tanks. Balance has to be a holistic thing, not matchup to matchup (let alone unit to unit).

I mean if MEQ comparisons upset, lets shoot guard with guard.
1/2*1/2*2/3*6.5=1.08333
1/2*2/3*2/3*6.5=1.44444
So about 0.36 of a point difference. In theory.

But in practice, what does this really mean?

It means that you're getting value with that Bolt Pistol and therefore it should cost a point.

 alextroy wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
Bolt pistol enjoyers would be better off in a world where plasma pistols cost more than bolt pistols, because there will be a reason to take bolt pistols. Right now there isn't. So all this gnashing of teeth about wasting less than 10 pts in a 2k list is completely silly, since you're effectively wasting at least as many pts by not taking plasma pistols currently, since upgrading a bolt pistol to a plasma pistol is worth at least a whole point, while a bolt pistol is worth at least a fraction of a point.

@Tyel 1 is the closest whole number to 0, so when I say bolt pistols should be 1 pt I am acknowledging the value they bring as being close to 0.

If you don't think an extra S matters why take a bolt pistol?

You do know that 0 is a whole number?

Oh, you mean the closest whole number greater than 0 is 1, because you don't want to round 0.4 to 0

As others have said, if the Bolt Pistol has no meaningful chance of impacting the game, it shouldn't cost anything. The best thing the rules should do is account for that by making some other rules balance to make the value of the Las Pistol more comparable to that of the higher strength Bolt Pistol and then let the player choose between two equally valuable choices.

I'm a 100 million year old robot, 0 isn't even MM years old, give me a break.

You're begging the question by saying it doesn't have a meaningful chance of impacting the game. If you don't think it's a meaningful difference just take the las pistol, the points cost is irrelevant since you wouldn't take it at 0 pts or 100 pts if it provides 0 value to you either way.

Tyel wrote:
But in practice, what does this really mean?

It means there's no reason to take a las pistol. Just like there's no reason to take a bolt pistol when a plasma pistol costs the same. Would the reason to take a 1 pt bolt pistol be bad when there's a 3 pt plasma pistol? Yeah, but it's better than what we have now.

Whelp - power levels are gonzo.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Whelp - power levels are gonzo.

And not a moment too soon. What a stupid system they were.

 alextroy wrote:
As others have said, if the Bolt Pistol has no meaningful chance of impacting the game, it shouldn't cost anything.

But it has the potential to do something - something you keep forgetting about and/or ignoring - and you pay points for the chance to do something just as much as you pay points hoping for a return on investment.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Whelp - power levels are gonzo.

Not a surprise. Unfortunate though.

Can't wait for the wailing and gnashing of teeth for units being bought in blocks if that happens though!

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Whelp - power levels are gonzo.

Not a surprise. Unfortunate though.

Can't wait for the wailing and gnashing of teeth for units being bought in blocks if that happens though!

Yeah, it remains to be seen how granular points are and whether wargear is purchased separately from the unit cost (late 9th was trending away from that even in point-based play).

 Asmodai wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Whelp - power levels are gonzo.

Not a surprise. Unfortunate though.

Can't wait for the wailing and gnashing of teeth for units being bought in blocks if that happens though!

Yeah, it remains to be seen how granular points are and whether wargear is purchased separately from the unit cost (late 9th was trending away from that even in point-based play).

It's entirely possible GW knowing 10th is on the horizon said, 'eff it, upgrades are free - we'll fix it later'. Still could go either way.

This isn't meant to be a gotcha - but plasma pistols are 5 points for guardsmen. I guess the real argument could be whether this is an auto-take or a never-take. Or about right. The damage output is clearly reasonable - but equally there's a high chance the squad is wiped without ever getting to pull the trigger. And if they were too good or too bad - would making them 3 or 7 points represent meaningful impact?

Yes, I suppose if I think there's no difference in laspistols and bolt pistols, I'm not impacted by bolt pistols being a 100 point upgrade and consequently never taken because they'd be a terrible option. But that's surely just the mirror of you not being impacted by the bolt pistol being zero - because if mathhammer dictates your decision making, you'll just always take that over the laspistol.

At its core the "bolt pistol debate" is a stand in for "free wargear". I just don't think its a problem. Clearly it can be a problem - just as too cheap units are an issue in general. But all "PL rules" does is change the optimal loadout of a unit. In both scenarios mathhammer dictates you take the most "undercosted" option.

If Wargear dramatically changes the purpose/output of a unit then that's different - but I don't think 40k works on that scale for a few bits. And when you have say a tank with 2 guns, the community tends to quickly identify which is "best".

To move from Marines and Guard to my own army DE, would it be better if the wargear selection rose or fell? On characters it could certainly do with coming back - because its basically been cut to nothing. A big fear of GW's "oh we decided players don't like relics/WLT" is that its only relics/WLT that make DE characters vaguely serviceable and interesting. (And yes, brokenly powerful 2 years back). Is a "free" blast pistol on an Archon unfair (assuming we can still take one and I wouldn't bet on it)? Well maybe - but for 70~ points you think you'd get something a bit more potent than a splinter pistol.

But lets look at Wracks. On an Acothyst I can take:
An Agonizer
An Electrocorrosive Whip
Flesh Gauntlet
Multiphase Gauntlet
Scissor Hands
Venom Blade
or keep the generic Wrack Blades.

Would this level of customisation be cool in something like Necromunda or Kill team? Sure. Maybe. Certainly for some sort of RPG. But can GW come up with 7 meaningfully different melee options for a relatively cheap unit champion in today's 40k? Not at all.

So you just take Electrocorrosive whips because its the best option and worth the 5 points. If they all became free you'd keep on taking the Electrocorrosive whips. Okay lets make Electrocorrosive whips 15 points or something, now we move down the list to the next choice etc.

Tyel wrote:
This isn't meant to be a gotcha - but plasma pistols are 5 points for guardsmen. I guess the real argument could be whether this is an auto-take or a never-take. Or about right. The damage output is clearly reasonable - but equally there's a high chance the squad is wiped without ever getting to pull the trigger. And if they were too good or too bad - would making them 3 or 7 points represent meaningful impact?

That's the fault of being an IGOUGO game. It doesn't mean Sternguard should get their gear for free because they MIGHT die before something happens. It also doesn't mean your sarge gets a better pistol for free because he MIGHT not use it.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Whelp - power levels are gonzo.

And not a moment too soon. What a stupid system they were.

But does this mean that points are the new power level, simplifying points so much that they are power level in all but name?

It's official, they are ditching power levels and sticking to point values.

Siegfriedfr wrote:
It's official, they are ditching power levels and sticking to point values.

And thank God. It wasn't even worth the minute they took to create it and an embarrassment to game design.

Tyel wrote:

At its core the "bolt pistol debate" is a stand in for "free wargear". I just don't think its a problem. Clearly it can be a problem - just as too cheap units are an issue in general. But all "PL rules" does is change the optimal loadout of a unit. In both scenarios mathhammer dictates you take the most "undercosted" option.

It's more it shows the inability to balance things down within the minute brackets they give themselves + peoples needless want and need for very linear "must be better and must have cost!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Siegfriedfr wrote:
It's official, they are ditching power levels and sticking to point values.

And thank God. It wasn't even worth the minute they took to create it and an embarrassment to game design.

Good, now they can sink that time into improving game balance now they'd removed list building options.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Siegfriedfr wrote:
It's official, they are ditching power levels and sticking to point values.

And thank God. It wasn't even worth the minute they took to create it and an embarrassment to game design.

Still better design than the current system of points.

 Kanluwen wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Siegfriedfr wrote:
It's official, they are ditching power levels and sticking to point values.

And thank God. It wasn't even worth the minute they took to create it and an embarrassment to game design.

Still better design than the current system of points.

Ah yes, Las Pistol = Plasma Pistol in cost is a great system.

Simping for PL is legit silly.