Why are ranged special weapons for AM cheaper than other imperium armies?

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.

**Sonic Keyboard**

Arachnofiend wrote:
If we're putting BS differences on the weapon's cost I don't understand why Space Marines pay extra for BS3.

Because the effect BS has on a plasmagun is bigger than on a bolter. So in theory marines pay for their bolter BS, and then when they buy a plsamagun they pay extra for plasma BS.
Going from 4+ to 3+ improves damage by 33% for both, but one weapon is crap and the other is versatile death machine where these 33% are worth more.

**GI_Redshirt**

Sonic Keyboard wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
If we're putting BS differences on the weapon's cost I don't understand why Space Marines pay extra for BS3.

Because the effect BS has on a plasmagun is bigger than on a bolter. So in theory marines pay for their bolter BS, and then when they buy a plsamagun they pay extra for plasma BS.
Going from 4+ to 3+ improves damage by 33% for both, but one weapon is crap and the other is versatile death machine where these 33% are worth more.

....No, no its not. The effect of a BS increase is the same for all weapons across the board. If Marines pay for their BS increase in their base statline, why do they need to pay for it again in the cost of a special weapon?

**alextroy**

It's almost like people don't understand the pricing formula GW is using of the armies in 8th Edition. It appears to be the following:
1. Determine all unit values including cost for Wargear upgrade options on all units.
2. Price basic weapons that are never used as an upgrade as 0 Points. Unit base cost is thus the cost of said model determine in step 1.
3. All wargear selected as upgrades have cost set at model cost from step 2 with upgrade minus base unit cost.
4. Go over all units that have priced warmer from step 3 and reduce base cost by wargear cost from step 3.

This is how you end up with units that have their standard weapon with a cost AND why some wargear options cost more for some armies than others. I hear all this whining about "Why are IG Plasmaguns cheaper than Space Marine Plasmaguns" but no one complains about IG Bolt Pistols and Blowguns being more expense than the Space Marine versions.

Frankly, I think the problem with IG Melta/Plasma has less to do with the BS of the unit wielding it than with the fact that the few BS3+ units int he Codex happen to be able to take multiple Plasmaguns AND two of them can deep strike. That makes them super useful, especially with he badly considered Overcharge rule they implemented. There would be a lot less Plasma flying around of the overcharge rule was "you choose make 1 shot attack with this weapon when shooting, but each Hit roll of 1 or less inflicts a Mortal Wound on the unit".

**Sonic Keyboard**

GI_Redshirt wrote:
Sonic Keyboard wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
If we're putting BS differences on the weapon's cost I don't understand why Space Marines pay extra for BS3.

Because the effect BS has on a plasmagun is bigger than on a bolter. So in theory marines pay for their bolter BS, and then when they buy a plsamagun they pay extra for plasma BS.
Going from 4+ to 3+ improves damage by 33% for both, but one weapon is crap and the other is versatile death machine where these 33% are worth more.

....No, no its not. The effect of a BS increase is the same for all weapons across the board. If Marines pay for their BS increase in their base statline, why do they need to pay for it again in the cost of a special weapon?

BS increases the average amount of hits a model inflicts with any weapon, in this case by 33%. We get an extra hit out of every 3 shots.
One extra hit with a plasmagun should be worth more than one extra hit from a bolter, and we can't put that into price of a marine.

**GI_Redshirt**

Sonic Keyboard wrote:
GI_Redshirt wrote:
Sonic Keyboard wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
If we're putting BS differences on the weapon's cost I don't understand why Space Marines pay extra for BS3.

Because the effect BS has on a plasmagun is bigger than on a bolter. So in theory marines pay for their bolter BS, and then when they buy a plsamagun they pay extra for plasma BS.
Going from 4+ to 3+ improves damage by 33% for both, but one weapon is crap and the other is versatile death machine where these 33% are worth more.

....No, no its not. The effect of a BS increase is the same for all weapons across the board. If Marines pay for their BS increase in their base statline, why do they need to pay for it again in the cost of a special weapon?

BS increases the amount of hits a model inflicts with any weapon, in this case by 33%. We get an extra hit out of every 3 shots.
One extra hit with a plasmagun should be worth more than one extra hit from a bolter, and we can't put that into price of a marine.

Exactly. The BS increases the amount of hits a model inflicts with ANY weapon. Not just Plasma. It doesn't matter if we're discussion Bolters, or Plasma, or Meltas, or Lascannons. The BS increase should therefore be built into the cost of the base unit alone as that increase affects the effectiveness of any weapon they wield. The increase in power from a Bolter to a Plasma Gun should be accounted for in the cost of the Plasma Gun compared to a Bolter. A Plasma Gun is just a superior to a Bolter on a 4+ platform as it is on a 3+ platform. Therefore, the only difference should be the cost increase of a 3+ platform compared to a 4+ platform. Nothing should be considered in the cost of the weapon beyond the power of that weapon relative to other weapons.

**Sonic Keyboard**

Then a 6ppm ork should pay the same 15 points for equivalent of autocannon a 13ppm chaos marine gets.

One of them is 21 pts and the other is 33% more expensive for twice the firepower (3 times when moving or firing at raven guard, etc.), and 3+ armor save. Does this feel right?

**Dakka Flakka Flame**

I don't have every codex, but Space Marines and Tyranids already pay different prices for a few different weapon and wargear options within their own codexes depending on what model is taking them.

**tneva82**

Sedraxis wrote:
Because Guard has to be the best at everything this edition, can't have them paying the same price as everyone else. /s

Honestly I don't know. It makes sense that a bad bs can't benefit from a weapon as much as a better shooter, but why does this only apply to Guard? They seem to be double dipping on all sides (regiments apply to everything, most CP, great statagems, great relics, great psykers & abilities, biggest flexibility on units and tactics and free orders on top of it).

Hard to compare as not many other BS4+ has access to heavy bolters(sisters have it but they are 3+). Orks pay less(albeit not enough) for the big shoota. 6 pts for what's assault vs heavy and no -1 AP. I doubt lack of AP is worth 4 pts though especially since they have assault over heavy so clearly they pay less for not having BS 3+ or even 4+.

Funny that less effective weapon costing less. Problem being more of armies with mix of BS where one unit does not pay enough. With IG they fixed that but only for melta and plasma. For orks for example either BS4+ get too cheap(though here you could say they are only ones paying fair price...) or BS5+ too much based on is price based on BS4+ or 5+.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

GI_Redshirt wrote:
To those saying its because Guardsmen are less durable than Marines and therefore shouldn't have to pay as much for weapons, wasn't that the entire reasoning behind splitting up points costs the way they did? The stat line and special rules of a unit are priced accordingly within the cost of the base model, then the weapons and wargear are separately priced based on their stat lines and special rules. So a Marine being more durable and more accurate than a Guardsman is reflected in the base cost of the Marine or Guardsman, while the special weapon (let's say a Plasma Gun) is priced according to the stat line of the weapon itself. Doesn't having the weapon be cheaper for Guardsmen because Guardsmen are less durable and less accurate than Marines when Guardsmen is already cheaper pointswise to accommodate for the fact that Guardsmen is less durable and less accurate than Marines defeat the purpose of splitting the points costs in the first place?

Of course you can't just take those separate from each other and assume it's going to be balanced...As it is GW has already decoupled those TOO much. Lascannon is worth different based on is it mounted on infantry squad, heavy weapon squad or leman russ. What they SHOULD have done is price each weapon for each platform separately but that's too complex for GW.

But platform affects value of weapon. You can't separate them and assume you get anywhere near balanced. Well not that GW really cares about balance.

**JohnnyHell**

The base model includes all its stats and abilities in pricing to a degree. Movement, overall accuracy, durability, interaction with other stuff in army.

The weapon cost is then tweaked based on effectiveness on that platform, hence weapons starting to has BS3+ and BS4+ costs.

It does make sense as a concept. Whether you think the exact application works is a different matter, but the core of it is sound. It's not really a double discount. To do it properly it should really be a different cost for each weapon for every possible platform. But that way lies madness for the writers!

GW have shown they're under pressure and not triple-checking everything at the mo through gaffes like cheaper Powerfists but not reducing Chainfists. Too many army books and projects all at once is seeing imperfect stuff sent to the printer. That's irritating, but the new FAQ hotline email address and March balancing pass give hope they'll fix things like that imbalance relatively swiftly.

They're also reacting not proactively tackling stuff, likely for time reasons. Plasma and Conscripts got addressed, leaving Guard troopers now effectively paying too much for any special weapons not tweaked to a special BS4+ price - hello meltaguns. They haven't seen rampant Meltagun abuse so haven't addressed the price. The FAQ hotline will give a chance for things like this to be fed back so they can enrich the meta with more choices than plasma again.

**Justyn**

Different Weapons should all have a different cost based on the hit number of the model equipping it. Most of the time this is solved by there only being one type of model equipping said weapon, and characters of that type. It shows the most problems in Imperium factions as they have the most shared equipment.

There should also be some thought given to how likely it is those models will be using some bonus that increases their odds of hitting.

Finally hitting on a 4+ is not half as effective as hitting on a 3+. If a 3+ Plasmagun is 13pts, then a 4+ plasma gun should be around 10pts.

**JorpA**

Justyn wrote:
Different Weapons should all have a different cost based on the hit number of the model equipping it. Most of the time this is solved by there only being one type of model equipping said weapon, and characters of that type. It shows the most problems in Imperium factions as they have the most shared equipment.

There should also be some thought given to how likely it is those models will be using some bonus that increases their odds of hitting.

Finally hitting on a 4+ is not half as effective as hitting on a 3+. If a 3+ Plasmagun is 13pts, then a 4+ plasma gun should be around 10pts.

No this does not make sense. You allready pay less for the dudes wielding thous guns. To get similiar power with marines out of thous guardsmen you should just get more of them. Not to upgrade them to the point that compared with marines. Marines look like some fresh recruits with old crappy guns. Guardsmen should be inferior compared to marines on every aspect expect being cheap Fighters. So thats what guardsmen should use to have similar power than marines have more bodies.

**tneva82**

Justyn wrote:
Different Weapons should all have a different cost based on the hit number of the model equipping it. Most of the time this is solved by there only being one type of model equipping said weapon, and characters of that type. It shows the most problems in Imperium factions as they have the most shared equipment.

Except value of gun is based on more than just to hit number. This is why GW has yet to ever get weapon costs right. At least they have gone better from ages where IG and marines paid same for power fist despite one clearly being inferior to other. Still all weapons should be priced on unit it's mounted which means even 2 models with 4+ could have different price.

**JohnnyHell**

tneva82 wrote:
Justyn wrote:
Different Weapons should all have a different cost based on the hit number of the model equipping it. Most of the time this is solved by there only being one type of model equipping said weapon, and characters of that type. It shows the most problems in Imperium factions as they have the most shared equipment.

Except value of gun is based on more than just to hit number. This is why GW has yet to ever get weapon costs right. At least they have gone better from ages where IG and marines paid same for power fist despite one clearly being inferior to other. Still all weapons should be priced on unit it's mounted which means even 2 models with 4+ could have different price.

Absolutely right. This is the start of what will no doubt tumble down through more weapons as time goes on. With balance comes points complexity.

**Blackie**

Ranged weapons should cost MORE for AM, not less. AM is currently the top tier army, there's no reason to give them the advantage of discount weapons.

**the_scotsman**

skchsan wrote:
I get what youre saying with the BS being lower, but why does a wargear need to be tailored around the platform? It's not about the effective WPP I'm talking about, but rather, why a weapon that does SAME STRENGTH, SAME AP & SAME DAMAGE can be priced differently just because of the platforms statline? There are numerous weapons available on platforms that clearly "arent worth taking for its price" in the game across all armies. Whats the deal with AM?

Listen, a single plasma in a guardmen unit isnt even game breaking. Whats at hand is the intent on considering weapon pricing based on the platform, but it has been singularly applied to AM, thats all.

Why not for all armies? If not for all armies, why just AM?

Because every other army where you get that direct comparison has BS3+ and better stats. If you look at, for instance, Genestealer Cultists, they also pay the Guardsman price for their weapons rather than the Space Marine price. You can also compare to other weapons that are similar in other armies. For instance, an ork Kustom Mega Blasta is a slightly better (because of less nasty Gets Hot) perma-overcharged plasma gun. Same stats, same AP, same damage on average, better gets hot rule, but on a crappier platform. 9 points. That's just how the game is priced out, weapons' platforms are taken into account in the pricing.

**Matt.Kingsley**

tneva82 wrote:
GI_Redshirt wrote:
To those saying its because Guardsmen are less durable than Marines and therefore shouldn't have to pay as much for weapons, wasn't that the entire reasoning behind splitting up points costs the way they did? The stat line and special rules of a unit are priced accordingly within the cost of the base model, then the weapons and wargear are separately priced based on their stat lines and special rules. So a Marine being more durable and more accurate than a Guardsman is reflected in the base cost of the Marine or Guardsman, while the special weapon (let's say a Plasma Gun) is priced according to the stat line of the weapon itself. Doesn't having the weapon be cheaper for Guardsmen because Guardsmen are less durable and less accurate than Marines when Guardsmen is already cheaper pointswise to accommodate for the fact that Guardsmen is less durable and less accurate than Marines defeat the purpose of splitting the points costs in the first place?

Of course you can't just take those separate from each other and assume it's going to be balanced...As it is GW has already decoupled those TOO much. Lascannon is worth different based on is it mounted on infantry squad, heavy weapon squad or leman russ. What they SHOULD have done is price each weapon for each platform separately but that's too complex for GW.

But platform affects value of weapon. You can't separate them and assume you get anywhere near balanced. Well not that GW really cares about balance.

More prices all over the place also gives GW more of a chance of missing a value when errata time swings around/more work.
That's why they've stuck and doubled down on standardised Points Costs that are decoupled from the models that use them (most of the time anyway; as noted Guard plasma has different costs based on the BS).

**Kanluwen**

GI_Redshirt wrote:
Sonic Keyboard wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
If we're putting BS differences on the weapon's cost I don't understand why Space Marines pay extra for BS3.

Because the effect BS has on a plasmagun is bigger than on a bolter. So in theory marines pay for their bolter BS, and then when they buy a plsamagun they pay extra for plasma BS.
Going from 4+ to 3+ improves damage by 33% for both, but one weapon is crap and the other is versatile death machine where these 33% are worth more.

....No, no its not. The effect of a BS increase is the same for all weapons across the board. If Marines pay for their BS increase in their base statline, why do they need to pay for it again in the cost of a special weapon?

Yes or No:
Marines have 3+ saves versus a Guardsman's 5+ save?
Marines can split units of 10 into smaller units of 5, allowing for specials/heavies to be insulated from their bolterbros?

The points difference between a Tactical Marine and a Guardsman is more than just their BS increase. They pay for their armor save, their Leadership, their Toughness, etc.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Matt.Kingsley wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
GI_Redshirt wrote:
To those saying its because Guardsmen are less durable than Marines and therefore shouldn't have to pay as much for weapons, wasn't that the entire reasoning behind splitting up points costs the way they did? The stat line and special rules of a unit are priced accordingly within the cost of the base model, then the weapons and wargear are separately priced based on their stat lines and special rules. So a Marine being more durable and more accurate than a Guardsman is reflected in the base cost of the Marine or Guardsman, while the special weapon (let's say a Plasma Gun) is priced according to the stat line of the weapon itself. Doesn't having the weapon be cheaper for Guardsmen because Guardsmen are less durable and less accurate than Marines when Guardsmen is already cheaper pointswise to accommodate for the fact that Guardsmen is less durable and less accurate than Marines defeat the purpose of splitting the points costs in the first place?

Of course you can't just take those separate from each other and assume it's going to be balanced...As it is GW has already decoupled those TOO much. Lascannon is worth different based on is it mounted on infantry squad, heavy weapon squad or leman russ. What they SHOULD have done is price each weapon for each platform separately but that's too complex for GW.

But platform affects value of weapon. You can't separate them and assume you get anywhere near balanced. Well not that GW really cares about balance.

More prices all over the place also gives GW more of a chance of missing a value when errata time swings around/more work.
That's why they've stuck and doubled down on standardised Points Costs that are decoupled from the models that use them (most of the time anyway; as noted Guard plasma has different costs based on the BS).

And realistically, the only reason Plasma got changed to be BS3+ or BS Other is because of Scions. They nerfed Veterans in the same instance as nerfing Scions despite Veterans not really being problematic.

Scions were relatively cheap, could take large quantities of Plasma, and had the ability to Deep Strike.

**AllSeeingSkink**

Weapons should cost more for units that can use them better.

The difference from Bs3 to Bs4 is worth a certain amount of points to the "base" model (which may be equipped with, for example, a lasgun or a bolter).

But the Bs difference is worth more when that model is carrying a special weapon that can do a lot of damage.

So you have a base price increase when going to higher level Bs, but you also get an increase in the cost of weapon options.

That is a far better system than the standardised points we used to have.

If you can't see it then all I can say is learn some maths and do some calcs

**G00fySmiley**

kurhanik wrote:
G00fySmiley wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
G00fySmiley wrote:
Cruddace wrote the Codex and was one of the Leads on the edition, that is why they are cheaper than they should be on AM than other armies. That said the platform is very different and that is why having a single points cost for weapons is absurd.

Cruddace is also responsible for the previous two trash codices for Guard...so now all of a sudden he's writing good stuff?

Also, Guard don't have a single points cost for all weapons. Melta and Plasma both have two points costs. Do you think every thing else needs the same? Because if you do, then I want two points costs for Plasma Pistols in Marine books, I want two points costs for Boltguns, I want two points costs for every other flipping book out there when there's an option that can be taken on an HQ or a normal option and there is a BS or WS difference.

I also want Guard characters to be given every single option that the basic Guardsman has access to. Because we don't get that otherwise. We can't give our Sergeants or Officers a Lasgun, we can't give them Combi-Weapons, we can't give them anything super special outside of Relics.

how does one accurately points a autocannon that may be on a T3 BS4+ W2 save 5+ heavy weapons team AND still have it accurate for a T6 BS4+ W6 save 3+ Armored Sentinel, while at the same time balancing out the affect of a swap to lascannons on the same unit.And this is two weapons in two units of the same Codex. Honestly I am hoping we see a return in 9th to weapons getting different costs on different platforms.

The points are based on the BS of an item.

The Sentinel being more durable doesn't mean jack when it's still hitting on a 4+.

Guard did not have a bad codex in 5th, 6th or 7th. I would agree that they were not always in the top tier army but they were usually solidly mid tier. I like the Guard as an army, but this edition their stuff just went too cheap for other armies to compete as a whole. I can have a fun game vs guard with my elder, my space marines have a noticeable power difference but it is not insurmountable, but my Tau and Orks are not even in the same League as guard currently.

I also disagree on the saying the 4+ is all that matters. read the whole thing. if they could ONLY take Autocannons then sure I could say the points could be addressed properly. but add in the other weapons and it is neigh impossible to balance. That was also meant as a criticism to the entire edition not just the imperial guard. how do you balance a bright lance on a weapons platform with a much more durable wraithlord when the wraithlord may also choose to use 3-4 other heavy weapons or forgo any heavy weapons and just go melee with a sword. I think the older unit entry method of assigning a points cost to a model was a better way of doing things.

The old 6th codex really wasn't that great - which is actually part of the problem coming into 8th. A lot of the complete garbage got buffed, and but then nobody looked and saw that the core rules on their own gave guard a big nudge. Ie: Conscripts before getting nerfed....3? 4? times - exactly the same as in 6/7th, but due to the fact that every single weapon in the game barring shootas and lasguns no longer ignored their armor, they gained a ton of staying power.

He, I swear remember hearing last edition the question of "why are guard paying the same points for stuff as space marines. The idea is that an individual guardsman hits on a 4+, so the weapon is less valuable on them than on a 3+ model. This can be seen by the fact that within the codex itself, 3+ units pay extra for the guns. Plasma is 7/13, Melta is 12/17 (I still think these values should be swapped).

Would it be better to balance if each individual unit had its own cost for each weapon? Definitely! It would probably mean that Veterans would become useful again as they won't be saddled with Scion's sins. GW is probably not going to do this for a long while though, if at all.

completely understandable, like many armies in 7th guard used an older codex not keeping up with the power creep, my meaning was that they were never in the bottom tier in tournament play. They admittedly needed allies in most cases, but they were leaps and bounds above nids, ork and a few others until they got codexes.. note mid tier does not mean they were the most powerful army or even close to it, just that they were playable and while other armies had it better for the points they were on the same playing field not left so far beind that there was not point in even playing.

**Galas**

JohnnyHell wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
Justyn wrote:
Different Weapons should all have a different cost based on the hit number of the model equipping it. Most of the time this is solved by there only being one type of model equipping said weapon, and characters of that type. It shows the most problems in Imperium factions as they have the most shared equipment.

Except value of gun is based on more than just to hit number. This is why GW has yet to ever get weapon costs right. At least they have gone better from ages where IG and marines paid same for power fist despite one clearly being inferior to other. Still all weapons should be priced on unit it's mounted which means even 2 models with 4+ could have different price.

Absolutely right. This is the start of what will no doubt tumble down through more weapons as time goes on. With balance comes points complexity.

I agree with this. A Lasscannon should have a different price on a Dreadnought, a Stormraven, a Devastator and a Predator.

Is like giving a fixed cost for the hability to Deepstrike. A Tactical Squad doesn't has the same value for Deepstrike than a Bloodthirster, or a blob of 30 Blodletters, for example. The use of one hability/weapon is contextual to the unit that is carrying it. Weapons should have all different point costs based in the model.
So then you can truly balance one model, giving specific costs to the different weapons he can carry based in how much power or utility those weapons give that base model.

**G00fySmiley**

master of ordinance wrote:
G00fySmiley wrote:

Guard did not have a bad codex in 5th, 6th or 7th. I would agree that they were not always in the top tier army but they were usually solidly mid tier. I like the Guard as an army, but this edition their stuff just went too cheap for other armies to compete as a whole. I can have a fun game vs guard with my elder, my space marines have a noticeable power difference but it is not insurmountable, but my Tau and Orks are not even in the same League as guard currently.

I also disagree on the saying the 4+ is all that matters. read the whole thing. if they could ONLY take Autocannons then sure I could say the points could be addressed properly. but add in the other weapons and it is neigh impossible to balance. That was also meant as a criticism to the entire edition not just the imperial guard. how do you balance a bright lance on a weapons platform with a much more durable wraithlord when the wraithlord may also choose to use 3-4 other heavy weapons or forgo any heavy weapons and just go melee with a sword. I think the older unit entry method of assigning a points cost to a model was a better way of doing things.

Hmm, look, heres someone who claims Guard where good in the last couple of editions, I wonder.... Yep, yep and yep, Eldar, Marines and Tau. The three most pampered factions of 6th and 7th edition. How did I guess?
Now, if I said what I want to say the mods would permaban me, so in regards to rule no.1 I am going to keep things as civil as possible.

First of all, stop spewing nonsense into the forums. It is clear that you have never played Guard, and you never had the pleasure of playing them in 6th or 7th, if you can call packing half to three quarters of your army away on the first turn pleasure. Guard where weak. Maybe not the weakest, but as someone who actually played them I can tell you that virtually every game was an uphill struggle against things that where just outright better than anything I had. Fighting against Tau, Marines or Eldar was basically an exercise in setting up and putting away. It was humiliating. You dont know what it was like, playing your pampered factions and enjoying being showered with love by GW. So dont youn dare come down with that high-and-mighty "Oh Guard where not bad in 6th and 7th, they had a great codex". Hell, our codex was a nerf to an already weak codex.

Secondly, how is a Powerfist (S x2) as valuable on a Guard Sergeant (WS3 S3 x 2 to 6) as opposed to a Marine sergeant (WS4 S3 x 2 to 8)? Or a Plasma gun (BS4+ vs BS3+)? Even if we ignore the difference in durability the Marine still gets more use out of his gun every time, as opposed to the Guardsman.
So, anyway, what is your proposed fix? Let me guess, we just ramp up the cost of all the Guard stuff so it costs at least twice as much as Marines pay, because Guard armies are so OP. And whilst we are at it lets make Guard infantry cost as much as the Marine equivalents, because Guardsmen are obviously worth at least as much as Marines, right? and those Russes are far too cheap, they should be 300 points each, and Baneblades 800. Yeah, thats balanced, right?
Or we could stop complaining and do what every Marine player told guard players to do over the last few editions and get good.

Thirdly, I have reached the point where I dont care anymore, so what Tau are weaker than Guard right now? Its not like they where better in every way in 6th and 7th right? We had to suck it up then, so you have too now. At least the power difference is a lot closer than it was last edition.

To all the other players whining about the points difference, look at the damn codex. Guard units only pay less for weapons when they are BS4+, all the BS3+ units still pay the exact same prices as the other Imperial BS3+ models do. Stop complaining, stop overblowing things and stop being reactionary.

did you read my post at all? first off I play orks mostly, I show up and have for 3 editions taking my lumps hoping one day my lovely green boys will be useable. my tau I like the models as fun to paint but they only see the table if somebody requests a game with them (maybe 4-5 games last edition usually to help people prepare for tournaments). My point on weapons is nto that they should cost the same on all platforms, it is they should not. in fact they should not cost the same on units in the same codex. a infantry unit should not pay the same as any vehicle in any army. a big shoota is worth more on my battlewagons than it is on my boyz. as an example

**Breng77**

skchsan wrote:
I get what youre saying with the BS being lower, but why does a wargear need to be tailored around the platform? It's not about the effective WPP I'm talking about, but rather, why a weapon that does SAME STRENGTH, SAME AP & SAME DAMAGE can be priced differently just because of the platforms statline? There are numerous weapons available on platforms that clearly "arent worth taking for its price" in the game across all armies. Whats the deal with AM?

Listen, a single plasma in a guardmen unit isnt even game breaking. Whats at hand is the intent on considering weapon pricing based on the platform, but it has been singularly applied to AM, thats all.

Why not for all armies? If not for all armies, why just AM?

All weapons across all armies would be better balanced if the platform were taken in to account, because the abilities of the model wielding the gun matter, and you cannot effectively balance a unit with multiple weapon options by its base stat line if all the weapons don't take its abilities into account.

**skchsan**

If we arvue for "better platform, higher the weapon cost" idea, then scions' plasmas (only) should be costed higher than imperial equivalent since they can deep strike into double tap range.

**Unit1126PLL**

There is certainly some weirdness going on, but I, too, am of the opinion that each and every unit should have their weapons costed according to that specific unit.

For example, a Land Raider gets more utility out of its twin lascannons than a Predator, because it can move and shoot them with no penalty.

But, that would make listbuilding ULTRA COMPLEX and make the burden on the designers quite heavy indeed, since each and every unit must be balanced and it must be in relation to other, similar units (e.g. should Special Weapon Squads pay the same price as Infantry Squads? Does being able to concentrate the weapons in one place warrant a higher cost or does being more vulnerable to the weapon being killed indicate a lower cost?)

**the_scotsman**

Hey man, just be thankful you're not playing Dark Eldar. We pay the same 20 points to put a Dark Lance on a T3 5+sv infantryman who treats it as a Heavy weapon as we do to put it on a tank that treats it as an assault weapon. That ability is right there on the weapon.

Incidentally we also pay the same points to put a Splinter Cannon on something replacing nothing, a single shot splinter rifle, or a double shot splinter rifle. It costs the same 15 points to gain 1 rapid firing shot, 2 rapid firing shots, or 3 rapid firing shots.

if that ain't perfectly balanced, I don't know what is.

**DoomMouse**

I'm not sure why this is generating so much discussion. It's literally because marines generally hit on 3s and guardsmen hit on 4s. It makes sense to pay for the BS on the weapon rather than the platform, as better BS will have much more value aiding bigger guns than small arms. This is the reason plasma scions were such a problem - they were paying BS4+ prices for their BS3+ plasma guns.

**Unit1126PLL**

DoomMouse wrote:
I'm not sure why this is generating so much discussion. It's literally because marines generally hit on 3s and guardsmen hit on 4s. It makes sense to pay for the BS on the weapon rather than the platform, as better BS will have much more value aiding bigger guns than small arms. This is the reason plasma scions were such a problem - they were paying BS4+ prices for their BS3+ plasma guns.

Yes, but I think the argument is that it is unbalanced.

Also, tell me again why Flamers are cheaper for Guard than for Marines? (and for SOB and Inquisition)

It's worth noting that an Inquisitorial Acolyte has a GEQ statline yet pays MEQ prices... GW's just all over the board, but the Guard get discounts because *reasons*

**tneva82**

skchsan wrote:
If we arvue for "better platform, higher the weapon cost" idea, then scions' plasmas (only) should be costed higher than imperial equivalent since they can deep strike into double tap range.

Yes that's because gw points just on bs. For better it would be per unit but that requires them to bb on unit datasheet. Gw went on back of book where by platform doesn't reaily work

Automatically Appended Next Post:

DoomMouse wrote:
I'm not sure why this is generating so much discussion. It's literally because marines generally hit on 3s and guardsmen hit on 4s. It makes sense to pay for the BS on the weapon rather than the platform, as better BS will have much more value aiding bigger guns than small arms. This is the reason plasma scions were such a problem - they were paying BS4+ prices for their BS3+ plasma guns.

By platform would account bs and other factors like survivability, special rules like deep strike, role(flamer is less useful on squads that move like turtle) etc etc.

Gw unsurprisingly went for what is never going to be even remotely balanced

**Unit1126PLL**

tneva82 wrote:
skchsan wrote:
If we arvue for "better platform, higher the weapon cost" idea, then scions' plasmas (only) should be costed higher than imperial equivalent since they can deep strike into double tap range.

Yes that's because gw points just on bs. For better it would be per unit but that requires them to bb on unit datasheet. Gw went on back of book where by platform doesn't reaily work

Even before they went to the back of the book 8th-edition style, this was a problem.

Units have, as far as I can remember, never had their own independent points costs for things since I started playing, IIRC.

For example, I believe a Heavy Weapons Team and a Leman Russ paid the same 10 points for a heavy bolter in every edition I can remember...

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

Having fixed weapon cost inside the codex is a very bad idea. Having fixed weapon cost in the whole game is even worse.

To determine the value of a model you need to determine the final loadout, with both the weapons and who wields it.