Switch Theme:

Fixing the point costs on leman russ sponsons and hull weapon  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in dk
Grisly Ghost Ark Driver






 Canadian 5th wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
Chronus isn't a key unit or related to any key units, he's just a little gimmick that one SM chapter gets. I think he should cost 5ish pts + 15ish% of the vehicle's cost including wargear. It doesn't fit with 9th's way of costing units though. I think making him cost 10 (Rhino), 20 (Razorback), 30 (Predator), 30 (Vindicator), 25 (Whirlwind), 25 (Hunter), 25 (Stalker) or 40 (Land Raider) would be a good change.

Yes, let's make Land Raiders even worse by adding even more of a tax to them this will clearly fix the issues with 9e...

Would you say that Tank Commanders are meant to be given full complement of weapons and the best weapons available?

Yes, the same way the every unit should be meant to take their best loadout and leave everything else to the casual and fluffy bunny crowds.

Do you think GW ought to signal this to their players? Like "hey don't put heavy flamers on your Tank Commanders" or something? Why even have the option of Vanquisher Tank Commanders with heavy flamer?

No, players shouldn't need to be handheld through building their army and if they make a wrong choice on weapon options they've learned two valuable lessons:

1) Magnetize everything.
2) Look for unit synergies.

Why don't you just magnetize your Russes into Harlequins?
   
Made in ca
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran




Vancouver, BC

Wyldhunt wrote:
If you can think of a way to determine which guns in a given army are going to be benefitting from those buffs, then I'd be all for it. But as you know, figuring out how many units of what points cost are going to be standing within 6" of a captain for however many turns of a game is pretty tricky to predict. So the designers presumably just eyeball how many extra points the buffing unit should cost for lack of a better metric.

That's actually one of the reasons I support the idea of replacing most buff auras with targeted buffs like the necron MWBD. While you won't be able to know exactly which units those buffs will end up applied to in a given game, you can at least know how many units will benefit from the buff and make an educated guess as to those units' costs.

If you can only ever buff one target it's going to lead to only ever taking that buff with its optimal target. If you don't take the unit that needs buffing you'll never take the buffer and you'd be unlikely to take the unit that takes buffs well without anything to buff them. You've made the game worse by making the best combinations even easier to spot.

I mean, not really. We're mostly just talking about a difference in Ballistics Skill, right? A heavy bolter on a tank commander will average 2 hits in a vacuum while a normal russ will only average 1.5. That differences is presumably worth some number of points unless there is no sponson for the higher BS to benefit. A heavy bolter on a TC is a slightly different weapon than a heavy bolter on a russ. So let's just price them accordingly.

Should it cost more to take a relic, let's make it a melee weapon, on a character that gets more attacks at better WS? What about with your free relic? This is literally the same argument you're making with TCs so I expect you to have a suggestion here as well.

You should consider that there's a reason we've moved away from attaching weapons costs to every unique unit before suggesting we bring that level of detail back.

To clarify, I'm not suggesting that we increase the cost of sponsons to reflect the tank orders rule. Tank orders, like many buffing rules, can end up applying to all sorts of targets and not necessarily to the weapons on the tank commander. It wouldn't make sense to increase the cost of a TC's sponsons to reflect a bonus he may or may not be giving himself, for instance; that would just encourage people to take a naked TC to save points and apply his buffs to another tank. The base cost of a tank commander should reflect an "eyeballed" value for the tank orders special rule just like a chaplain's base cost presumably reflects his litanies.

See above.

 vict0988 wrote:
Why don't you just magnetize your Russes into Harlequins?

Because I don't own any and that's not how this works...

You suggested "hey don't put heavy flamers on your Tank Commanders" which is what I responded to. If your point was actually that Russes are bad and people should probably avoid buying an IG force until they get their new codex I agree with that.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/02/11 22:45:34


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Canadian 5th wrote:

If you can only ever buff one target it's going to lead to only ever taking that buff with its optimal target. If you don't take the unit that needs buffing you'll never take the buffer and you'd be unlikely to take the unit that takes buffs well without anything to buff them. You've made the game worse by making the best combinations even easier to spot.

Abilities that buff a single allied unit already exist, and they don't seem to prevent people from fielding suboptimal unit combos or using those buffs suboptimally in a casual game. Sometimes MWBD gets used on doomsday arks. Sometimes it gets used on warriors or immortals. Usually my farseer's Guide gets slapped on a squad of dark reapers, but sometimes I end up using it on my humble avengers or my guardian blobs. Sure, there's an ideal target for that buff, but that's true when the buff is an aura instead of a targeted effect too. Making it a single-unit buff instead of an aura buff just means that the designers can plan around a single unit benefitting from the effect instead of every unit the player manages to squeeze into a 6" bubble.


Should it cost more to take a relic, let's make it a melee weapon, on a character that gets more attacks at better WS? What about with your free relic? This is literally the same argument you're making with TCs so I expect you to have a suggestion here as well.

Yes, a melee weapon (relic or otherwise) would ideally be priced differently based on the WS and Attacks of the wielder. A power sword on a captain is much more useful than a power sword on a sergeant and should be priced as such. Personally, I would prefer relics not be free at all. Instead, they should just be normal wargear (possibly with a limitation that you can only take 1 of each per army) with an appropriate points cost attached.


You should consider that there's a reason we've moved away from attaching weapons costs to every unique unit before suggesting we bring that level of detail back.

Isn't that reason basically just that GW liked the idea of fitting a unit's entry on a single datasheet rather than splitting it between a special rules page and a wargear page like they did in the old days? Or possibly that someone thought it made sense to make things like BS and WS modifiers on the base unit price rather than applying it to the cost of the weapons? If it's the latter, I think we can safely say that that logic is flawed. A bolt pistol (or whatever ranged weapon you care to look at) is more valuable in the hands of a 2+ BS captain than a 3+ BS sergeant, but that captain might not end up with any ranged weapons at all if he's rocking a thunderhammer, storm shield, and terminator armor. So it makes more sense to charge him extra points for guns he's toting than to simply raise his base price for a Ballistics Skill he might not actually be benefitting from.

But if you're referring to a different reason, I'm afraid you may have to spell it out for me.
   
Made in ca
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran




Vancouver, BC

Wyldhunt wrote:
Abilities that buff a single allied unit already exist, and they don't seem to prevent people from fielding suboptimal unit combos or using those buffs suboptimally in a casual game.

I forgot casual games where the players may not even be following the rules correctly are exactly where we should be focusing our balance efforts. How stupid of me to think that you'd want to focus around tournaments where you can be sure your rules are actually followed.

Making it a single-unit buff instead of an aura buff just means that the designers can plan around a single unit benefitting from the effect instead of every unit the player manages to squeeze into a 6" bubble.

Have buff blobs even been a thing in 9e? I haven't seen it crop up in any tournament reports and even casual players seem to be reporting that you need to spread out more in this edition. Given the state of the meta I feel like a 6" aura offers more interesting choices on the table than your idea does.

Yes, a melee weapon (relic or otherwise) would ideally be priced differently based on the WS and Attacks of the wielder. A power sword on a captain is much more useful than a power sword on a sergeant and should be priced as such. Personally, I would prefer relics not be free at all. Instead, they should just be normal wargear (possibly with a limitation that you can only take 1 of each per army) with an appropriate points cost attached.

So you'd prefer a vastly changed game...

Isn't that reason basically just that GW liked the idea of fitting a unit's entry on a single datasheet rather than splitting it between a special rules page and a wargear page like they did in the old days?

My guess would be that they had a few reasons for the change, a few that come to mind are:

1) It's simpler for players if all instances of a certain weapon in their army cost the same. That's changed slightly with costs for weapons on vehicles, but even that's only two costs.
2) It cleans up the layout for unit entries.
3) It's harder to snap a picture of a single codex page and get a usable set of rules. (I discount this one personally but I have seen this argued.)
4) They thought pricing things based on the general BS/WS of a faction was close enough and that the detailed points were too much work for too little gain.
5) It feels nice to find a 'deal' on a piece of wargear and use it in a way that the designers planned for but that feels extra powerful.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/02/11 23:41:05


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Canadian 5th wrote:
Wyldhunt wrote:
Abilities that buff a single allied unit already exist, and they don't seem to prevent people from fielding suboptimal unit combos or using those buffs suboptimally in a casual game.

I forgot casual games where the players may not even be following the rules correctly are exactly where we should be focusing our balance efforts. How stupid of me to think that you'd want to focus around tournaments where you can be sure your rules are actually followed.

I hope I"m just misreading your text voice, but you're coming across as very defensive and rude. Relax, friend. I'm not an anti-IG villain trying to hamstring your army. We're chatting about toy soldiers. Let's enjoy the polite conversation.

A couple of things here. First, there's nothing wrong with designing the game with both casual and competitive players in mind. Just because some of us enjoy games that don't have tournament prizes on the line doesn't mean we don't enjoy having things relatively balanced. Playing a tournament game doesn't mean rules mistakes aren't being made. Playing a casual game doesn't imply that the rules aren't being followed "correctly."

Second, you're the one who brought up the notion that targeted buffs would make players feel pressured to only use those buffs on optimized targets. You made it sound like that was a concern for you. So I presented you with existing examples of targeted buffs and pointed out that those who use targeted buffs in a suboptimal fashion exist. The targeted buff hasn't stopped them from using said buff on suboptimal units.

You seem to be distressed by the notion that people might only buff optimal units but also distressed by someone pointing out that people might also buff suboptimal units.


Making it a single-unit buff instead of an aura buff just means that the designers can plan around a single unit benefitting from the effect instead of every unit the player manages to squeeze into a 6" bubble.

Have buff blobs even been a thing in 9e? I haven't seen it crop up in any tournament reports and even casual players seem to be reporting that you need to spread out more in this edition. Given the state of the meta I feel like a 6" aura offers more interesting choices on the table than your idea does.

"Buff blobs" probably haven't been a serious concern this edition. They do seem to have been a concern last edition, however. The introduction of the core keyword and changing various buffs to only target core units (or to target only a single unit in the case of the Chapter Master) seems to have been a response to such things. Whatever the case, limiting the number of units a given buff can apply to makes that buff ability easier to price. Sure, you might not know whether a chapter master's rerolls are going to be used on a humble 5 man tactical squad or on a maxed out squad of terminators, but at least you know it isn't going to be applied to both of those units at once plus three of their dreadnaught friends.


Yes, a melee weapon (relic or otherwise) would ideally be priced differently based on the WS and Attacks of the wielder. A power sword on a captain is much more useful than a power sword on a sergeant and should be priced as such. Personally, I would prefer relics not be free at all. Instead, they should just be normal wargear (possibly with a limitation that you can only take 1 of each per army) with an appropriate points cost attached.

So you'd prefer a vastly changed game...

"Vastly," is subjective but feels inaccurate to me. The quoted section includes two main ideas:
1.) Charging different prices for weapons based on the wielder's stats. We already do this with some ranged weapons. Doing it with melee weapons makes sense to me.
2.) Relics should cost points. A bit off-topic for this thread, but not a bizarre or terribly complex idea. Relics cost points in 6th (and 7th?) edition. They could do so again. They currently cost a resource (CP); I'd just like to see them cost a more precise resource (points). Currently, there are some serious winners and losers in the relic department, and this is partly the result of the losers taking up the same slots/resources as the winners. Making them cost points instead of slots or CP would let you make a weaker relic a viable option next to a stronger relic.


My guess would be that they had a few reasons for the change, a few that come to mind are:

1) It's simpler for players if all instances of a certain weapon in their army cost the same. That's changed slightly with costs for weapons on vehicles, but even that's only two costs.
2) It cleans up the layout for unit entries.
3) It's harder to snap a picture of a single codex page and get a usable set of rules. (I discount this one personally but I have seen this argued.)
4) They thought pricing things based on the general BS/WS of a faction was close enough and that the detailed points were too much work for too little gain.
5) It feels nice to find a 'deal' on a piece of wargear and use it in a way that the designers planned for but that feels extra powerful.


2 and 3) Fair enough.
1 and 4) It probably is simpler for most people (I miss being able to math out the cost of a unit without referencing multiple pages). It honestly probably is "close enough." TC and LRs paying the same points for their sponsons isn't breaking the game. Personally, I just like the idea of costing unit and wargear options as accurately as we reasonably can. Maybe you feel that making a power sword on a captain more expensive than a power sword on a sergeant is too much work for too little a return. Reasonable people could certainly hold that opinion.

Do you feel that point 4 is a good reason to avoid fine-tuning points costs? I may be misreading you, but you seem to feel very strongly about balancing things in competitive play, so being reluctant to improve the accuracy with which items are priced seems odd to me.

5.) That... doesn't sound ideal to me, but balance means falling within a range rather than hitting an exact value. So eh.

Honestly, my guess is that between the designers and the layout guys, retyping the cost of a lascannon for a given unit just seemed like a hassle, so they decided to give up some of their ability to fine-tune points costs in favor of dropping the sprawling wargear option costs of old.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/02/12 01:34:13


 
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

In 7th, Relics did cost points, Wyld. You're not crazy-at least, not for THAT reason.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in ca
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran




Vancouver, BC

Wyldhunt wrote:
I hope I"m just misreading your text voice, but you're coming across as very defensive and rude. Relax, friend. I'm not an anti-IG villain trying to hamstring your army. We're chatting about toy soldiers. Let's enjoy the polite conversation.

I don't play IG. My armies are DA and CSM.

First, there's nothing wrong with designing the game with both casual and competitive players in mind.

In a game with more skill expression outside of list building, you can actually do this. League of Legends, for example, balances around 4 categories of play which are IIRC average (player platinum and below), skilled (diamond rated players), challenger (the top rated soloQ players), and professional (the professional leagues around the world). They balance each champion based on which tier it's problematic at and we tend to see certain types of champions and playstyles feature prominently at specific tiers. 40k can't do this because it doesn't have skill based matchmaking, video game level data collection, and room for skill expression to break units into appropriate tiers of play.

Just because some of us enjoy games that don't have tournament prizes on the line doesn't mean we don't enjoy having things relatively balanced. Playing a tournament game doesn't mean rules mistakes aren't being made. Playing a casual game doesn't imply that the rules aren't being followed "correctly."

Which game is more likely to get the rules correct, a fluff game between two narrative players or matches between 4-0 players at a major tournament?

Second, you're the one who brought up the notion that targeted buffs would make players feel pressured to only use those buffs on optimized targets. You made it sound like that was a concern for you. So I presented you with existing examples of targeted buffs and pointed out that those who use targeted buffs in a suboptimal fashion exist. The targeted buff hasn't stopped them from using said buff on suboptimal units.

At a meta-level it would decrease diversity, especially at the highest levels of play. Current high-level competitive lists are rather diverse and I'm wary of any changes that might harm this diversity. People who play casually or for fluff aren't the scene I care about.

"Buff blobs" probably haven't been a serious concern this edition. They do seem to have been a concern last edition, however.

So why go and attempt to fix a solved problem?

The introduction of the core keyword and changing various buffs to only target core units (or to target only a single unit in the case of the Chapter Master) seems to have been a response to such things. Whatever the case, limiting the number of units a given buff can apply to makes that buff ability easier to price. Sure, you might not know whether a chapter master's rerolls are going to be used on a humble 5 man tactical squad or on a maxed out squad of terminators, but at least you know it isn't going to be applied to both of those units at once plus three of their dreadnaught friends.

Prove that this is a balance issue worthy of the serious balance changes that implementing it would cause.

1.) Charging different prices for weapons based on the wielder's stats. We already do this with some ranged weapons. Doing it with melee weapons makes sense to me.

Which stats do we care about for this pricing? If it's just WS and BS that could lead to either glass cannon or durable units being heavily buffed by such a change. Also, aren't differences in unit costs already in place to attempt to balance these sorts of things?

2.) Relics should cost points. A bit off-topic for this thread, but not a bizarre or terribly complex idea. Relics cost points in 6th (and 7th?) edition. They could do so again. They currently cost a resource (CP); I'd just like to see them cost a more precise resource (points). Currently, there are some serious winners and losers in the relic department, and this is partly the result of the losers taking up the same slots/resources as the winners. Making them cost points instead of slots or CP would let you make a weaker relic a viable option next to a stronger relic.

Does having units and unit upgrades cost points have this effect or are you talking about some magical Christmas land scenario where suddenly all the terrible relics are taken because they only cost points instead of CP? Also, what further restrictions do you intend to add to stop things like master-crafted weapons from being spammed?

Do you feel that point 4 is a good reason to avoid fine-tuning points costs? I may be misreading you, but you seem to feel very strongly about balancing things in competitive play, so being reluctant to improve the accuracy with which items are priced seems odd to me.

I do because there is no way the GW has the data required to balance options at that level of granularity. In theory, making every little thing cost a bespoke number of points up to increasing costs when something is taken more than a set number of times is a good idea for balance, in practice, it's just a lot of work and will likely have zero effect on balance without accurate data to base these points on.

5.) That... doesn't sound ideal to me, but balance means falling within a range rather than hitting an exact value. So eh.

People like to feel smart when they build an army list. Leaving in little nuggets that feel imbalanced is a great way to give people that rush.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/02/12 02:08:50


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 JNAProductions wrote:
In 7th, Relics did cost points, Wyld. You're not crazy-at least, not for THAT reason.

For what it's worth, the non-point relic system could work but only under certain conditions. I came to the conclusion it wouldn't be far off from what we have with Marines and their special issue wargear.
1. You get a pool of generic items that can be "free" for your generic Character.
2. If you want an additional relic thats more powerful,, you have to pay a CP for that one.

For example, the Spartean or Purgatorus are hardly items that break the game, even if you got them for free. Quite honestly, I'd say the same for most melee relics as well, and lower tier support relics like Honour Vehement aren't that valuable. However, when it comes to the REALLY strong weapon relics like perhaps the Bellicos Rifle or really good support relics like the Vox, those would cost a CP to add on.

On top of making Your Dude more akin to a special character, we can also stop pretending all Relics are equal and have the same cost. However....even if you Spartean or Purgatorus were just 5 points would you actually pay that? I really don't think so.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Canadian 5th wrote:


Just because some of us enjoy games that don't have tournament prizes on the line doesn't mean we don't enjoy having things relatively balanced. Playing a tournament game doesn't mean rules mistakes aren't being made. Playing a casual game doesn't imply that the rules aren't being followed "correctly."

Which game is more likely to get the rules correct, a fluff game between two narrative players or matches between 4-0 players at a major tournament?

Does it matter? Does the narrative players being more prone to occassional rules mistakes somehow mean that they're less deserving of well-crafted rules? You seem to be turning up your nose at non-tournament gamers.


Second, you're the one who brought up the notion that targeted buffs would make players feel pressured to only use those buffs on optimized targets. You made it sound like that was a concern for you. So I presented you with existing examples of targeted buffs and pointed out that those who use targeted buffs in a suboptimal fashion exist. The targeted buff hasn't stopped them from using said buff on suboptimal units.

At a meta-level it would decrease diversity, especially at the highest levels of play. Current high-level competitive lists are rather diverse and I'm wary of any changes that might harm this diversity. People who play casually or for fluff aren't the scene I care about.

The game is far from static though. We still have a ton of codices waiting to be released, and if 9th is anything like 8th, we'll likely see some pretty major FAQs in response to changes to the meta. If your concern is the preservation of diversity in high-end meta, then there are other factors that are much, much more likely to disrupt that than proposing that weapons that hit more often should maybe cost a bit more than weapons that are identical but hit less often.

I'm also not sure I agree that making an ultramarines character and tank commanders pay a little more for their weapons is going to suddenly wither the diversity in the field. If anything, the intended goal of making their "inferior" versions more desirable by comparison ought to make a few units more viable.


Buff blobs probably haven't been a serious concern this edition. They do seem to have been a concern last edition, however.

So why go and attempt to fix a solved problem?
...
Prove that this is a balance issue worthy of the serious balance changes that implementing it would cause.

That's actually a fair point. While I still prefer targeted buffs over the use of a "core" keyword on paper, GW's approach may end up being perfectly fine. It lets them bypass some of the more obvious combos by simply excluding the obvious recipients from the list of buff beneficiaries. Although we're probably still waiting to see how that turns out.


First, there's nothing wrong with designing the game with both casual and competitive players in mind.

In a game with more skill expression outside of list building, you can actually do this. League of Legends, for example, balances around 4 categories of play which are IIRC average (player platinum and below), skilled (diamond rated players), challenger (the top rated soloQ players), and professional (the professional leagues around the world). They balance each champion based on which tier it's problematic at and we tend to see certain types of champions and playstyles feature prominently at specific tiers. 40k can't do this because it doesn't have skill based matchmaking, video game level data collection, and room for skill expression to break units into appropriate tiers of play.

...

Do you feel that point 4 is a good reason to avoid fine-tuning points costs? I may be misreading you, but you seem to feel very strongly about balancing things in competitive play, so being reluctant to improve the accuracy with which items are priced seems odd to me.

I do because there is no way the GW has the data required to balance options at that level of granularity. In theory, making every little thing cost a bespoke number of points up to increasing costs when something is taken more than a set number of times is a good idea for balance, in practice, it's just a lot of work and will likely have zero effect on balance without accurate data to base these points on.

Your points here have merit. We don't have so much data that we can reliably set an absolutely perfect points cost for every little upgrade in the game. However, it's pretty clear that something like a tank commander does make better use of its sponsons than a normal russ. The difference between hitting on a 3+ and a 4+ with something like a lascannon is probably worth a couple of points. Even if we don't know what the exact "correct" points cost for a leman russ's sponson weapon should be, we can still be pretty sure that a tank commander's sponson should cost a bit more.

You can argue that our lack of knowledge of what the exact prices shoul be makes it pointless to spend time and energy updating a bunch of points costs. But by the same token, you probably shouldn't be bothered if GW opted to do that price update in the future, right? After all, we don't have enough data to know the exact cost a sponson should have, but we can reason that a tank commander's sponson should be more expensive than those of a russ. And who are we to say that such a change would be bad for game balance? After all, we don't have League levels of data to reference. Right?

I'm not offering to go through and update every points cost in the game, but I do think it would be a sensible way for GW to approach their 'dex design in the future.


1.) Charging different prices for weapons based on the wielder's stats. We already do this with some ranged weapons. Doing it with melee weapons makes sense to me.

Which stats do we care about for this pricing? If it's just WS and BS that could lead to either glass cannon or durable units being heavily buffed by such a change.

For melee weapons, we'd probably care about WS and Attacks. Not sure what you're referring to in regards to glass cannons and durable units. An autarch is more likely to hit with a power sword than a banshee and swings the sword more times. A banshee should be paying X points for its 2 attacks with a power sword. An autarch should pay Y points where Y > X. Y-X probably shouldn't be a huge number; certainly not enough to suddenly make the autarch hyper durable or a glass cannon for its cost.


Also, aren't differences in unit costs already in place to attempt to balance these sorts of things?

"Attempt," yes. But as described by multiple examples in this thread (the tank commander with no sponsons or the BS2+ captain with no shooting attack), putting the extra cost on the base price of the unit rather than on the weapon can be a flawed approach. How many points should the captain in terminator armor with no ranged weapons be paying for BS2+?


Does having units and unit upgrades cost points have this effect or are you talking about some magical Christmas land scenario where suddenly all the terrible relics are taken because they only cost points instead of CP? Also, what further restrictions do you intend to add to stop things like master-crafted weapons from being spammed?

I'm not sure I understand your initial question here. As an example, craftworlders have access to some melee weapon relics that just aren't very good. Certainly not better than the phoenix gem or faolchu's wing. As a result, those relics basically never get taken. And because there are multiple relics that are better than those melee relics, you generally don't take said melee relics even when you're spending CP to take extra relics. But if you purchased relics by spending points on them rather than using up "free relic slots" and CP, you could make something like the firesabre very cheap (say 5 or 10 points). It would suddenly be more appealing because A.) I might have 10 points to spend on a relic, but not the 25 points that a phoenix gem costs, and B.) I could take as many relics as I wanted (though only one of each kind.)

I'm not familiar with how master-crafted weapons work at the moment. Based on context, I assume they're sort of kind of relics? If they have a 0-1 restriction like relics, then that problem solves itself. Otherwise, isn't the solution just to price them reasonably? How many points should a thousand sons inferno weapon cost?


5.) That... doesn't sound ideal to me, but balance means falling within a range rather than hitting an exact value. So eh.

People like to feel smart when they build an army list. Leaving in little nuggets that feel imbalanced is a great way to give people that rush.

I'm all for leaving psychological candy for your players to enjoy, sure. Though this sounds oddly like, "Those dumb players are so stupid that they'll get excited over inaccurately costed options."




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
In 7th, Relics did cost points, Wyld. You're not crazy-at least, not for THAT reason.

For what it's worth, the non-point relic system could work but only under certain conditions. I came to the conclusion it wouldn't be far off from what we have with Marines and their special issue wargear.
1. You get a pool of generic items that can be "free" for your generic Character.
2. If you want an additional relic thats more powerful,, you have to pay a CP for that one.

For example, the Spartean or Purgatorus are hardly items that break the game, even if you got them for free. Quite honestly, I'd say the same for most melee relics as well, and lower tier support relics like Honour Vehement aren't that valuable. However, when it comes to the REALLY strong weapon relics like perhaps the Bellicos Rifle or really good support relics like the Vox, those would cost a CP to add on.

I could see that working. Basically create "lesser" and "greater" relics with the latter always costing CP even if you use your "free relic slot."


On top of making Your Dude more akin to a special character, we can also stop pretending all Relics are equal and have the same cost. However....even if you Spartean or Purgatorus were just 5 points would you actually pay that? I really don't think so.

Hmm. I feel like I would occassionally use even the most unimpressive of relics if all they cost me were a couple of points. The thing that keeps me from using the Kurnous's Bow relic pistol for craftworlders isn't that I don't have 5 points laying around; it's that the pistol so far down on my list of relic picks.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/02/12 05:28:19


 
   
Made in gb
Wing Commander





Bristol (UK)

I wouldn't lose too much sleep over Canadian, he's said multiple times in the past he's on the forum primarily to troll.
You can see here that he's missed the point so utterly it must be intentional and he's bringing up arguments entirely unrelated to the subject at hand to derail the argument.
There's no point arguing.
   
Made in ca
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran




Vancouver, BC

Wyldhunt wrote:
Does it matter? Does the narrative players being more prone to occassional rules mistakes somehow mean that they're less deserving of well-crafted rules? You seem to be turning up your nose at non-tournament gamers.

You're the one assuming rules mistakes. My initial point was that a lot of fluff players use house rules, or play without some of the rules because one player is learning, etc. This is all a fine way to play as well, but it's something exclusive to casual players and makes the game significantly harder to balance.

The game is far from static though. We still have a ton of codices waiting to be released, and if 9th is anything like 8th, we'll likely see some pretty major FAQs in response to changes to the meta. If your concern is the preservation of diversity in high-end meta, then there are other factors that are much, much more likely to disrupt that than proposing that weapons that hit more often should maybe cost a bit more than weapons that are identical but hit less often.

Given that you've also suggested changes to auras, relics, and stratagems it seems odd that this is now what your claiming.

Your points here have merit. We don't have so much data that we can reliably set an absolutely perfect points cost for every little upgrade in the game. However, it's pretty clear that something like a tank commander does make better use of its sponsons than a normal russ.

Yes, but can you tell me which one is closer to balanced before making any changes to them; are Tank Commander's too good for their points or are Russes just bad? Can they even be balanced around their weapons given that a TC is also paying for orders and is a higher priority target for the enemy's anti-tank? There's a lot more to balance than just making sure something shoots right for the cost.

But by the same token, you probably shouldn't be bothered if GW opted to do that price update in the future, right? After all, we don't have enough data to know the exact cost a sponson should have, but we can reason that a tank commander's sponson should be more expensive than those of a russ. And who are we to say that such a change would be bad for game balance? After all, we don't have League levels of data to reference. Right?

I don't think GW will do as you're suggesting and I think that if they were to attempt it they'd like as not break the game worse than it is currently for trying. If they made an exact copy of 40k in digital form and released it as a way to gather data then I could see them really fixing balance issues; assuming that's even their goal at all.

For melee weapons, we'd probably care about WS and Attacks. Not sure what you're referring to in regards to glass cannons and durable units. An autarch is more likely to hit with a power sword than a banshee and swings the sword more times. A banshee should be paying X points for its 2 attacks with a power sword. An autarch should pay Y points where Y > X. Y-X probably shouldn't be a huge number; certainly not enough to suddenly make the autarch hyper durable or a glass cannon for its cost.

Imagine two units that have the same S, WS, and Attacks which are both using the same weapon but one of them is a T3 W3 4+ save model and the other is T5 W6 2+/4++ which model will be more likely to survive to make it into a greater number of combats in a given game? If you're saying that the unit which swings the sword more times should pay more shouldn't that also apply here?

But as described by multiple examples in this thread (the tank commander with no sponsons or the BS2+ captain with no shooting attack), putting the extra cost on the base price of the unit rather than on the weapon can be a flawed approach. How many points should the captain in terminator armor with no ranged weapons be paying for BS2+?

Does he have the option to take a ranged weapon? If he does he should pay full value for the ability under the current rules. If we had a more granular system and a basis to balance it then you'd want to shift the costs for WS and BS so that it's balanced between the model and the weapons it can use.

I'm not sure I understand your initial question here. As an example, craftworlders have access to some melee weapon relics that just aren't very good. Certainly not better than the phoenix gem or faolchu's wing. As a result, those relics basically never get taken. And because there are multiple relics that are better than those melee relics, you generally don't take said melee relics even when you're spending CP to take extra relics. But if you purchased relics by spending points on them rather than using up "free relic slots" and CP, you could make something like the firesabre very cheap (say 5 or 10 points). It would suddenly be more appealing because A.) I might have 10 points to spend on a relic, but not the 25 points that a phoenix gem costs, and B.) I could take as many relics as I wanted (though only one of each kind.)

Most players still won't take those cheap crappy relics and your idea also has the consequence of forcing players who wish to use relics to take fewer models which will only further encourage relics to become stratified into the ones worth paying for and the ones which aren't. Also wouldn't your desired system also require these relics to have a different cost for every unit that can take them to prevent anybody from eeking out extra value from putting the right relic on the right model?

I'm not familiar with how master-crafted weapons work at the moment. Based on context, I assume they're sort of kind of relics? If they have a 0-1 restriction like relics, then that problem solves itself. Otherwise, isn't the solution just to price them reasonably? How many points should a thousand sons inferno weapon cost?

They're relics-lite. Heck, there isn't actually a restriction stating that you can only have one relic of a given name either, it's just that the only way to get more than one relic has its own restrictions built into it.

Your points idea doesn't really work to stop a weapon from being spammed though. If it's good for the points people will take them until the role it fills is saturated, if it's bad most people won't take them at all. Getting it to where it's expensive enough not to be spammed but good enough that you want one or two is difficult to do for a unit entry let alone a weapon upgrade.

I'm all for leaving psychological candy for your players to enjoy, sure. Though this sounds oddly like, "Those dumb players are so stupid that they'll get excited over inaccurately costed options."

It's no insult at all. It's just a fact, one baked fully into games such as TCGs where, in many respects, the deck is the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 kirotheavenger wrote:
I wouldn't lose too much sleep over Canadian, he's said multiple times in the past he's on the forum primarily to troll.
You can see here that he's missed the point so utterly it must be intentional and he's bringing up arguments entirely unrelated to the subject at hand to derail the argument.
There's no point arguing.

The only off-topic thing I introduced with Chronus which is the SM equivalent to an AM Tank Commander. It was Wyldhunt that suggested unique points values for every weapon on every unit that can take them and that's what started the rabbit hole going ever deeper.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/02/12 16:37:12


 
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut




 vict0988 wrote:
Same goes for Pask, but you should adjust the basic price if you want to do it.

Knight Commander Pask equipped with: vanquisher battle cannon.


I wouldn’t make a BS2+ cost for heavy weapons in the Guard codex. There’s diminishing returns on weapons.

Just a BS4+ and BS3+ (or better) would be fine.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/18 06:12:58


 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Knight Commander Pask is basically the only BS 2 the guard even have, he should just have the same point costs for his hull/sponsons as the tank commanders, he is already a bullet magnet for his cost points, and in addition it would just add to the insane rules bloat 40k is suffering from in 9th edition
   
Made in de
Regular Dakkanaut





How about we give BS3+ to all russes and allow one upgraded to tank comander per 3 for say...20 points (to account for the cost of the orders).

Adjust points accordingly. Done
   
Made in us
Roarin' Runtherd




Honestly the best way to fix this issue is drop Tank Commanders to BS4+ but give all Russes, tank commanders included the option to take Veteran Crew who raise the BS to 3+. Have the BS 3+ Russes cost the same as the current ones, and drop the base cost of all the Russes by 10 points each.

An additional fix to the way in which Tank commanders act is have them affect several Russes instead of just ordering one Russ. Have them affect all Russes in their "platoon" with an order.

Going by the three already here
Full Throttle,

Strike and Shroud

Gunners Kill on Sight

These all could become affects that effect up too three additional Leman Russes, or a better way is that you select a Leman Russ unit before battle and they become that Commander's platoon, use the Guard's squadron capacity to create organic structures. Yes this creates some book keeping but his a Tank Commander, he should have a unit of tanks he affects. Perhaps painting small unit insignias would be an easy way to keep track of this.

Or if you wanted to modify these orders, have them become

Squadron Advance!

Strike and Shroud!

Gunners! Priority Target!

Leave the two above untouched, and make the last pick a target and the Squadron plus the Tank Commander reroll 1s against it.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/04/20 15:29:46


 
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter




It's not the BS that kills the Russ or the cost, it's the added baggage that comes with the Russ, in order to make it good you HAVE to take a tank commander. Just make a tank commander built into a squad, like a SGT in a infantry squad. That one unit can give orders, but in order to get this you must take a minimum squad, 3 tanks. Not three individual tanks, 1 squad, 3 tanks. 1 tank can give orders. Done.
   
Made in dk
Grisly Ghost Ark Driver






Jarms48 wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
Same goes for Pask, but you should adjust the basic price if you want to do it.

Knight Commander Pask equipped with: vanquisher battle cannon.


I wouldn’t make a BS2+ cost for heavy weapons in the Guard codex. There’s diminishing returns on weapons.

Just a BS4+ and BS3+ (or better) would be fine.

Who is going to run vanquisher heavy flamer sponson Pask? If I modelled my Pask this way would you have me rip him apart and repaint him? It would be a failure if Pask became so expensive when fully equipped that he became overcosted but was cheap enough when run naked that he was overpowered, but I think vanquisher Pask being a huge joke is not great either.
bat702 wrote:
Knight Commander Pask is basically the only BS 2 the guard even have, he should just have the same point costs for his hull/sponsons as the tank commanders, he is already a bullet magnet for his cost points, and in addition it would just add to the insane rules bloat 40k is suffering from in 9th edition

How is it bloat? The points are listed anyways, they just require some changes. When a unit is not getting shot at you want it to have more offence, when it is getting shot at you want more defence, I get that, but if the extra offence comes cheap enough then it becomes a no-brainer despite the unit turning into a glass cannon, because better that than a decorative glass vase.
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut




 vict0988 wrote:

Who is going to run vanquisher heavy flamer sponson Pask? If I modelled my Pask this way would you have me rip him apart and repaint him? It would be a failure if Pask became so expensive when fully equipped that he became overcosted but was cheap enough when run naked that he was overpowered, but I think vanquisher Pask being a huge joke is not great either.


I'm not sure what you mean here sorry.

The entire point of not charging him more for his weapons over a tank commander is diminishing returns. A BS2+ heavy bolter for say 20 points isn't worth taking over 2 10 point BS4+ heavy bolters. As the BS4+ heavy bolters have roughly the same average, but double the ceiling.

It's also not just firepower that suffers from diminishing returns but the durability as well. You're just making something that still has the exact same durability as a standard Russ, but we're getting close to double its points.

It's only has base cost that should be adjusted. If he cost 10 - 20 points over a tank commander for his BS2+ and the weapon costs were the same, that would be fine. Simply for the fact that nothing else on his profile changes.



   
Made in dk
Grisly Ghost Ark Driver






Upgrading a Tank Commander with vanquisher and heavy flamer to Pask is worth fewer points than upgrading a Tank Commander with plasma executioner and 3x heavy bolter, my argument is that simple.

Maybe one should cost 10 and the other should cost 30 to upgrade or one should cost 20 and the other 25, but I think saying they are both worth 25 is overselling one and underselling the other.

There is no guarantee that your opponent will field enough ranged anti-tank to take out Pask turn 1. Custodes, Necrons and Death Guard generally won't field that much anti-vehicle, lists aren't built for dealing with a Knight a turn like they were in 8th. A small number of Imperium melta units are insane and Drukhari dark lances are undercosted, so there are some lists where your Pask upgrade will be worthless, but that's also why it shouldn't cost 25% more as that is how many extra hits you are getting.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/23 05:45:04


 
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut




 vict0988 wrote:
Upgrading a Tank Commander with vanquisher and heavy flamer to Pask is worth fewer points than upgrading a Tank Commander with plasma executioner and 3x heavy bolter, my argument is that simple.

Maybe one should cost 10 and the other should cost 30 to upgrade or one should cost 20 and the other 25, but I think saying they are both worth 25 is overselling one and underselling the other.

There is no guarantee that your opponent will field enough ranged anti-tank to take out Pask turn 1. Custodes, Necrons and Death Guard generally won't field that much anti-vehicle, lists aren't built for dealing with a Knight a turn like they were in 8th. A small number of Imperium melta units are insane and Drukhari dark lances are undercosted, so there are some lists where your Pask upgrade will be worthless, but that's also why it shouldn't cost 25% more as that is how many extra hits you are getting.


Why would heavy flamers even increase in cost for higher BS on vehicles? It doesn't on infantry. A flamer is 5 points on both Guardsmen and Scions.
   
Made in dk
Grisly Ghost Ark Driver






Jarms48 wrote:
Why would heavy flamers even increase in cost for higher BS on vehicles? It doesn't on infantry. A flamer is 5 points on both Guardsmen and Scions.

I don't think it should either, I am using the flamer because it does not increase in value, as opposed to a heavy bolter or lascannon which does. So you get the vanquisher which is generally agreed upon being a weapon of little value and a flamer which gets no value from the increased BS and you're down to your extra order in terms of value. Compared with a triple heavy bolter and plasma executioner Pask that is getting more hits on all his heavy bolters and on a more valuable turret weapon.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: