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.

Slipspace wrote:
Again, it's literally your job as a designer to figure this sort of thing out. It's not an unknowable mystery, just not necessarily straight forward. In a given paradigm, maybe points aren't the reason something isn't taken, though meltas are a bad example because there will always be a non-zero cost where people will take a melta over a bolter. Flamers, for example, suffered in previous editions because they usually weren't an upgrade, so any points cost above 0 was too high.

Taking meltas specifically, let's show why you're wrong. We'll assume we're talking about Tacticals here and we'll assume meltaguns are not currently taken but we don't know why. A simple thought experiment shows why your reasoning doesn't work. If we increased the cost of plasma, grav and flamers to 100 points and changed the cost of meltaguns to 1, we'd see everyone taking meltaguns and nobody taking the other options. That fact alone tells you there is a point-based solution to this. You can argue the reduced range means the bolter still has some utility over the meltagun, but I'd challenge that assertion given the huge lethality increase a meltagun provides and the tiny cost in our example. The exact ratios are not easy to determine, but that's not the same as things being impossible. If nobody is ever taking a weapon that is an upgrade over your basic gun you haven't costed it appropriately, by definition.

Even with all that said, GW's current solution still isn't the solution.

Flamers are an interesting one. GW has tried a few things. CSM had +2 flamers that were half the cost of plasma and melta. No one took them. AoO dropped points to zero. Do you know what people took? Cultists.

Making meltas 1 and everything else would STILL have people not taking them. Why? When you build your list what do you do? You fill in your basic requirements, which is the cheapest of the cheap. Then you do the rest of your list. THEN if you have points left over you start grabbing tertiary upgrades starting from the top - not the bottom.

Regarding points for weapons not being as straightforward as just making all meltaguns cost ten:

A "wielder multiplier" sounds like the answer to a lot of the issues with different models being less effective or less durable with a weapon. We could call this stat something that indicates the relative power of the model. Something like "Power Level". Use a basic space marine as the benchmark, then normalize up and down based on the accuracy and durability of the model.

Something like this:
Space Marine Multiplier: 1
Guardsman Multiplier: 0.5
Storm Trooper Multiplier: 0.75
Sisters Multiplier: 0.75
Canoness Multiplier: 1

This lets you create a single table for weapon costs which is wielder agnostic.

We already had weapon costs based on the wielder. It didn't change much.

 Paimon wrote:
Regarding points for weapons not being as straightforward as just making all meltaguns cost ten:

A "wielder multiplier" sounds like the answer to a lot of the issues with different models being less effective or less durable with a weapon. We could call this stat something that indicates the relative power of the model. Something like "Power Level". Use a basic space marine as the benchmark, then normalize up and down based on the accuracy and durability of the model.

Something like this:
Space Marine Multiplier: 1
Guardsman Multiplier: 0.5
Storm Trooper Multiplier: 0.75
Sisters Multiplier: 0.75
Canoness Multiplier: 1

This lets you create a single table for weapon costs which is wielder agnostic.

That still isn't that simple, is the marine multiplier of 1 based on firing with or without oaths, with or without the various smattering of attached output characters, does it factor in resilience of the wielder as well if so there's a series of other characters you need to worry about. If you factor in for the max stacking then the other units or targets will be overcosted, if you balance it against base cost then it might get out of hand with XYZ combinations.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
We already had weapon costs based on the wielder. It didn't change much.

Still better than having no cost at all and saying we should give up because it's too hard or can't be done perfectly.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
From a design standpoint it might be helpful to understand why people aren't using melta, but the ideal is simply to find a cost where the melta is just as enticing as other weapons and all are worth considering.

I don't think there is a cost. It's mostly binary. 2 point meltas might be enticing over 5 point plasma, but ultimately both get dumped to find room elsewhere.

If there is a cost where you would never take melta and a cost where you would always take melta, there is a cost in between where it's a choice.

In the real world where 'perfect points' is an unattainable Platonic ideal and the best you can hope for is 'close enough', then maybe more squads will take melta than not, or maybe you'll only see it occasionally, but either of those presents a decision where there are pros and cons and you aren't overtly punished by assembling your models wrong.

I don't think this is something you can logic out of. It isn't giving up, because it's too hard. It's recognizing that humans are gonna human and a system you design will be corrupted ( chaos always wins ) in every possible manner. It's like a 'when in Rome...' situation. Instead of worrying about weapons entice with unit abilities and see what shakes out.

I'm not commenting on the efficacy of the system, because I have no idea. I see some of the reasoning behind it and I'm curious to see what happens.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
From a design standpoint it might be helpful to understand why people aren't using melta, but the ideal is simply to find a cost where the melta is just as enticing as other weapons and all are worth considering.

I don't think there is a cost. It's mostly binary. 2 point meltas might be enticing over 5 point plasma, but ultimately both get dumped to find room elsewhere.

For who? My Space Marines always bought Specials.

I've seen Guard players both buy Specials and not buy Specials, excercising their choice as to where to spend their points.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I don't think this is something you can logic out of. It isn't giving up, because it's too hard. It's recognizing that humans are gonna human and a system you design will be corrupted ( chaos always wins ) in every possible manner. It's like a 'when in Rome...' situation. Instead of worrying about weapons entice with unit abilities and see what shakes out.

You don't need to be able to logic your way out of it - design isn't just about logic and maths. Not being able to construct a logical argument for what the cost of a given upgrade should be doesn't mean you can never determine that cost, to within a reasonable margin of error. Everything you've said there is just about throwing your hands up, declaring the whole thing too difficult, and going with the worst possible "solution".

I don't think anyone's saying the system GW have chosen can't work. The problem is, in order for it to work, you need every available upgrade to be of equal value, which requires a ground-up redesign of almost all the units in the game. GW haven't even done 1% of the work that would be required to use the system they've chosen. So the last sentence of your post is moot since that's not what we're dealing with in 10th.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
It's recognizing that humans are gonna human and a system you design will be corrupted ( chaos always wins ) in every possible manner.

I can see this exact same thought running through a developer's head during a coffee break. "Humans are gonna human and chaos always wins, so let's just throw something at the wall to see what sticks and play Battlebits on the office computer for the rest of the day. The suits are gonna pay me the same either way!" Heh. The irony.

The problem being that they then decided to go with the system that creates the largest disparity between those who "corrupt" (takes every best in slot upgrade they can now that there is absolutely no reason not to) and those who do not (anyone who doesn't do that).

 Insectum7 wrote:
For who? My Space Marines always bought Specials.

I've seen Guard players both buy Specials and not buy Specials, excercising their choice as to where to spend their points.

There is always going to be people who do. The question is do people do it regularly? I don't think so. New players are also going to be the most excited to roll their cool squad with gubbins. Then they find out that the points are better spent elsewhere.

I've literally never not taken specials in my Marine, Chaos Marine and Guard Squads unless there was an organisational reason why I couldn't (ie. weapon limitation based on squad size).

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
For who? My Space Marines always bought Specials.

I've seen Guard players both buy Specials and not buy Specials, excercising their choice as to where to spend their points.

There is always going to be people who do. The question is do people do it regularly? I don't think so. New players are also going to be the most excited to roll their cool squad with gubbins. Then they find out that the points are better spent elsewhere.

I know all of this is gonna be anecdotal but both my LGS is pretty split on a 50/50 when it comes to bringing naked squads or fully upgraded squads. Even within the same army, i've seen people bring naked tacticals and full 10-man with all the bells and whistle


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I've literally never not taken specials in my Marine, Chaos Marine and Guard Squads unless there was an organisational reason why I couldn't (ie. weapon limitation based on squad size).

al my legionnaires ran with a combi melta on the leader + a melta (until the 9th ed codex dropped)

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
For who? My Space Marines always bought Specials.

I've seen Guard players both buy Specials and not buy Specials, excercising their choice as to where to spend their points.

There is always going to be people who do. The question is do people do it regularly? I don't think so. New players are also going to be the most excited to roll their cool squad with gubbins. Then they find out that the points are better spent elsewhere.

The answer is yes, people purchase Specials regularly enough to keep the design space open to player choice.

I think the only unit I've run with my Tau that didn't take upgrades when it could was Pathfinders. Crisis of course did, stealth suits did for some extra punch (fusion blasters) and more battlefield support capabilities (homing beacon etc.), Broadsides did (shield drones, choice of support system).

And that was because Pathfinders existed to do one job in my army and the opponent would always focus on killing them ASAP to shut that down. So investing more points on them for better guns, which also had the side effect of reducing their ability to do the main job they were taken for, was not a sound move.

Now that those better guns are free, and no longer decrease the units effectiveness at being a spotter for other things as markerlights aren't a piece of wargear but just a keyword? Yes, I will have 3 rail rifles, a grenade launcher, 2 gun drones, a recon drone or a grav inhibitor or pulse accelerator in every unit of pathfinders. Pathfinders are now a more lethal infantry unit than the Fire Warrior teams that are meant to be the standard line infantry of the Tau military.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

It doesn't cost 0 points here. We're just not privy to the actual cost. Instead you're forced to take the option.

Actually, for Devastators at least we do get a window into costs. The first 5 models, where the upgrades are concentrated, cost 120 points. The next 5 models are extra bolter bodies, and they cost 80 points to add to the squad. So 40 points for Heavy weapons plus extra Sergeant equipment.

Slipspace wrote:
I don't think anyone's saying the system GW have chosen can't work. The problem is, in order for it to work, you need every available upgrade to be of equal value, which requires a ground-up redesign of almost all the units in the game. GW haven't even done 1% of the work that would be required to use the system they've chosen. So the last sentence of your post is moot since that's not what we're dealing with in 10th.

I think most people here think it won't work.

There's also multiple issues :

A - Upgrades within units being at parity
B - Physical models not possessing upgrades and the impact of that
C - The removal of choice

These issues bleed into each other and I'm sure I've missed stuff.

It's entirely possible this trades not picking weapons to not picking units and for a good while it's going to be messier than we might hope.

Slipspace wrote:


I don't think anyone's saying the system GW have chosen can't work. The problem is, in order for it to work, you need every available upgrade to be of equal value, which requires a ground-up redesign of almost all the units in the game. GW haven't even done 1% of the work that would be required to use the system they've chosen. So the last sentence of your post is moot since that's not what we're dealing with in 10th.

No real work was done on the older system either. Thing was either must-have or must-avoid. Probably because game systems tend to be very binary.

Now, let us make this more granular.

First we have weapons. Weapon systems are complex, and I will admit that some can occasionally cost points(weapons with high strength, high ap, high damage, and high range). The problem is that closer you get to the cost of a model in your army the less valuable it is compared to a body and default gun, but if I was still on hopium I might believe GW could do it in the 11th iteration. You want meltagun with 12" range? However, the unit operates at 24-36" range meaning that meltagun is super situational. So most of the time you'll probably go with the default layout making the meltagun a moot point. Hell, even if the meltagun is free it doesn't necessarily rhyme with the squad due to its short range, meaning that in a free universe a single melta guy might never shoot due to his short range. Hell, even if you had a plasma with equal range of others in the squad you'd still see so little return of investment. Are you willing to pay 10 points to have a slightly better chance at killing one grunt?

Second we have unit upgrades like banners, sigils, trumpets, clarinets, or whatever. These I'd argue were taken about 1% of the time. If they gave you an ability that unlocked the unit then it was used, otherwise it was left in the garbage bin like an old DVD of The Happening. There was no either or and if the points got raised on it, it either was still a must have or the unit was just now too expensive. There was rarely any middle ground.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
We already had weapon costs based on the wielder. It didn't change much.

Still better than having no cost at all and saying we should give up because it's too hard or can't be done perfectly.

To my mind, the big issue is that the cost based on wielder was obfuscated. By giving every model a "power level" modifier, it gives a more precise dial to tweak balance. If Unit A is buffed too much from a faction ability, then change the multiplier on Unit A. Heck, give faction abilities multipliers too. If a 'no faction' space marine model is 10 points, and taking a faction gives a buff, make that buff an explicit multiplier. Say a 10% increase for Space Wolves, bringing their base cost to 11.

Right now it feels like they pulled unit points costs out of their ass. By making an obvious system, the book keeping that they seem to hate gets reduced.

There was a lot of copy paste writing the rules for some faction. You can even see it in the errors made when the copy was made.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


I know all of this is gonna be anecdotal but both my LGS is pretty split on a 50/50 when it comes to bringing naked squads or fully upgraded squads. Even within the same army, i've seen people bring naked tacticals and full 10-man with all the bells and whistle

It depends on the army though, and a lot. My GK terminators didn't come with banners or an apothecary. Now in order to have full equpied units, I have to get 4 banner dudes and 4 apothecaries from somewhere, and I will be left with 8 regular terminators I will never use. And someone at the stupid decided that my dudes supposet to not just be elite in name, but in point costs too. We cost like custodes, for weaker stat line and weapons. A squad without those upgrades is really not worth the points, and to make it even more fun. Paladins who for some reason can't take an apothecary, were made both bad and over costed, so there is no way to get around the no apothecary/no ancient in unit.

The rule doesn't matter for units with no options, and there is more then enough of those, even counting space marines with primaris.

 Eldarsif wrote:

Slipspace wrote:


I don't think anyone's saying the system GW have chosen can't work. The problem is, in order for it to work, you need every available upgrade to be of equal value, which requires a ground-up redesign of almost all the units in the game. GW haven't even done 1% of the work that would be required to use the system they've chosen. So the last sentence of your post is moot since that's not what we're dealing with in 10th.

No real work was done on the older system either. Thing was either must-have or must-avoid. Probably because game systems tend to be very binary.

Now, let us make this more granular.

First we have weapons. Weapon systems are complex, and I will admit that some can occasionally cost points(weapons with high strength, high ap, high damage, and high range). The problem is that closer you get to the cost of a model in your army the less valuable it is compared to a body and default gun, but if I was still on hopium I might believe GW could do it in the 11th iteration. You want meltagun with 12" range? However, the unit operates at 24-36" range meaning that meltagun is super situational. So most of the time you'll probably go with the default layout making the meltagun a moot point. Hell, even if the meltagun is free it doesn't necessarily rhyme with the squad due to its short range, meaning that in a free universe a single melta guy might never shoot due to his short range. Hell, even if you had a plasma with equal range of others in the squad you'd still see so little return of investment. Are you willing to pay 10 points to have a slightly better chance at killing one grunt?

Disagree. People chose the upgrade for how they expected to use the squad. Rear objective holders would take Heavies and/or long ranged Specials. Squads expecting to operate closer to the front would often take Meltas and sometimes Flamers in past editions. Some people just wanted screens of bodies, and chose to go without upgrades. It wasn't binary. For me at least there was a lot of internal chemistry between those choices too, as I never wanted to lean to heavily into a single choice, and the options allowed me to plug capability gaps depending on what other units were taken.

 Eldarsif wrote:
Second we have unit upgrades like banners, sigils, trumpets, clarinets, or whatever. These I'd argue were taken about 1% of the time. If they gave you an ability that unlocked the unit then it was used, otherwise it was left in the garbage bin like an old DVD of The Happening. There was no either or and if the points got raised on it, it either was still a must have or the unit was just now too expensive. There was rarely any middle ground.

There was a time in 8th where the Banner came and went form my army in response to the rest of my build. That made it neither a "must-have" or a "must-leave". It can be done.

Karol wrote:
It depends on the army though, and a lot. My GK terminators didn't come with banners or an apothecary. Now in order to have full equpied units, I have to get 4 banner dudes and 4 apothecaries from somewhere, and I will be left with 8 regular terminators I will never use. And someone at the stupid decided that my dudes supposet to not just be elite in name, but in point costs too. We cost like custodes, for weaker stat line and weapons. A squad without those upgrades is really not worth the points, and to make it even more fun. Paladins who for some reason can't take an apothecary, were made both bad and over costed, so there is no way to get around the no apothecary/no ancient in unit.

The rule doesn't matter for units with no options, and there is more then enough of those, even counting space marines with primaris.

Don't go buy models for that stuff. Paint one helmet white ( or some complementary color ) - that's the apothecary. Then find banners from your sprues or buy printed ones and rig them up.

Paladins get -1 to wound and hit on 2s. I'm not sure they're that far off.

Also don't necessarily count on the Apothecary upgrade staying for Terminators. Given that Paladins - the unit which has always previously been associated with the Apothecary CAN'T take the upgrade, it could very well be an error.

chaos0xomega wrote:
The HWT adds 0 wounds to the units lethality if its dead before it can be used.

The same is true for replacing naked Tacticals with heavily armed Devastators, you are still engaging in sophistry.

Evaluating based purely on a weapons lethality is giving you a misleading sense of value.

I suppose the person who values things clearly worth more than 0 at 0 is the one with the wrong sense of value.

You have to account for the actual level of utility being provided by the option, which is kind of the core of my point (and what nou understood and everyone else didn't)

There is no great shame in being taken in by sophistry, hopefully, nou will come to see reason, if not then it's thankfully no big deal as this is after all just a game of toy soldiers.

You have to look at average performance over the course of a real game

Then why do you keep proposing its worth is indistinguishable from zero when that is evidently not the case?

points are balanced and evaluated at the army level, not the unit level, not the model level, nor the weapon level.

There are two kinds of balance, internal balance and external balance. It would be a rather shoddy wargame if the game was entirely externally balanced but wholly unbalanced internally as every faction would devolve to playing the same list with no opportunity for replacements or personal expression because a unit of Guardsmen costs more than a Leman Russ and Monoliths less than Deathmarks per model.

 Insectum7 wrote:
People chose the upgrade for how they expected to use the squad.

Which is something you can still do. Worrying that your rearguard wouldn't be as efficient if the Sarge doesn't have a TH is kind of moot. Yes, you paid for a TH or whatever weapon you might use. A weapon you probably won't use actively and if you did it comes down to like 30% change to do a wound or two.

Are you aiming for the top tables at LVO? Then get those TH on. Otherwise I don't think it's worth worrying about. I do imagine most older gamers here have enough models to accommodate if they wanted to.

There's a more nuance on what to do with stuff like Death Company though ( highly dependent on unit buffs ).

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
People chose the upgrade for how they expected to use the squad.

Which is something you can still do. Worrying that your rearguard wouldn't be as efficient if the Sarge doesn't have a TH is kind of moot. Yes, you paid for a TH or whatever weapon you might use. A weapon you probably won't use actively and if you did it comes down to like 30% change to do a wound or two.

Are you aiming for the top tables at LVO? Then get those TH on. Otherwise I don't think it's worth worrying about. I do imagine most older gamers here have enough models to accommodate if they wanted to.

There's a more nuance on what to do with stuff like Death Company though ( highly dependent on unit buffs ).

its not about if theyre gonna use them or not tho... Its about purposefully choosing as a player that you want to bring naked squads as a backfield holder/action monkey. Now you can't do that.

If i want a cheap squad of legionnaires to hold my home objective, i can't do that, i have to pay extra points (therefore, limiting the options in the rest of my army) just because GW decided that bolters are the same as a lascannon+heavy melee weapon+tome+plasma pistol+icon.

It's not about the loss of % on effectiveness.

Ok, that's a good point, but we're talking about a system where everyone has that deficit and where all your other stuff is 'upgraded' so there's no points to shave. And that burrows right into part of why this system could be useful - it's not so easy to strip squads to meet requirements so that you can fit more good stuff.

Instead of CSM just punching down 3 Cultists squads and using the additional 150 points to go buy another tank you have to make sure the unit suits your particular army's strategy. I just see the focus changing from fiddling for efficiency to fiddling for synergy and function.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
People chose the upgrade for how they expected to use the squad.

Which is something you can still do. Worrying that your rearguard wouldn't be as efficient if the Sarge doesn't have a TH is kind of moot. Yes, you paid for a TH or whatever weapon you might use. A weapon you probably won't use actively and if you did it comes down to like 30% change to do a wound or two.

Why would I be fighting every battle the same way? Do I fight long-ranged Tau in the same way that I fight CC Tyranids? I sure don't! There is no "rearguard unit" when charging in with Devastators is a smart move (and a move that I've absolutely done). Having the extra capability is something that should definitely cost points because it forces more/harder decisions at the listbuilding stage.

It's free now. You can expect every squad to start fielding the already built P-fist Sergeants I have lying around, and you can expect more to show up in the assembly line. It's going to be all Powerfist/ThunderHammer-Plasma Pistols all the time.

But also, did you just chaosXomega with your "30% chance to do a wound or two?" statement? A Powerfist more than doubles the damage output of a 5 Marine squad against MEQ.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
FOIP - Find Out In Play

Again your reasoning is based on there being a pronounced difference in the upgrades available to a given unit, and ignoring any other perks and advantages a given army or even unit might have available.

Necron Warriors for instance have Resurrection Protocols because they’re Necrons, and an improved version because they’re Necron Warriors.

The Necron army has various means to improve Resurrection Protocols - and the Warrior’s native boost triggers on every instance.

So whilst yes, a Tactical Squad may have greater flexibility of options, Necron Warriors can just keep on getting up, and getting up, and getting up, and getting up. Not only does that help them avoid Battle Shock, but suitably supported they may prove bloody difficult to shift off an Objective.

Hence FOIP. Right now, we only have theory hammer for the most part. Until we’ve seen how overall armies perform, particularly as we’ve a much looser FOC, we can’t really say too much about balance.

Because the game is about more than just trying to annihilate each other’s models. It may not matter if you’re kicking my head in each turn, if I’m deft at scoring Objectives and other sources of VPs.

Ah, that I can agree on, the change in rules could mean these profile differences don't matter as much. I'm not very optimistic about that, but I sincerely hope it isn't as bad as it looks. I also wouldn't mind the weapons being baked into the unit cost if they felt more like sidegrades, I'm actually glad they're trying to reduce complexity a bit (less so with how they're going about it, but it is gw).