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.

Not. This. Again.

Weapons should be paid in proportion of
- How easy is the platform to be removed (less important)
- How effective is the platform with them (more important).

Movement and other variables should be taken in account for any successive balance iteration.

In past editions, the cost of the weapon was associated with the unit. The pricing was often stupid but the idea was brilliant because it allowed ad-hoc solutions.

If you have problem with the effectiveness of the AM units, is because the edition and the ways they wrote morale rules are dumber and dumber the more you look at them (and more codices come out with the "lose max 1 model" - second stupidest thing after the "-1 to hit").

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 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*

That is one thing I wonder on too. While Flamers aren't the most effective of weapons, it seems like they should have the opposite pricing of melta/plasma for changing BS. 1d6 autohits is more valuable on a 4+ unit than a 3+ unit after all.

Still, it would be just better overall to have weapons priced to the platform. Not going to happen anytime soon, but at least we are stepping in the right direction.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
Not. This. Again.

Weapons should be paid in proportion of
- How easy is the platform to be removed (less important)
- How effective is the platform with them (more important).

Movement and other variables should be taken in account for any successive balance iteration.

In past editions, the cost of the weapon was associated with the unit. The pricing was often stupid but the idea was brilliant because it allowed ad-hoc solutions.

If you have problem with the effectiveness of the AM units, is because the edition and the ways they wrote morale rules are dumber and dumber the more you look at them (and more codices come out with the "lose max 1 model" - second stupidest thing after the "-1 to hit").

Here I am just sitting here hoping they continue to add more stacking -1LD modifiers onto my multi-eldar soup lists.

Currently my max debuff is -7, most of which is pretty cheap/easy.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
Weapons should be paid in proportion of
- How easy is the platform to be removed (less important)

Why? No one's forcing you or mandating you to purchase the weapon. If you don't think the platform isn't worth the added cost of the weapon, you shouldn't purchase it.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
Weapons should be paid in proportion of
- How effective is the platform with them (more important).

Again, why? Weapons themselves already have grades/effectiveness/calibers that are priced accordingly - i.e. rail weapon on pathfinders/broadside/hammerheads. In the same way, Weapons that are named different but have the same stats are priced the same - i.e. storm bolter/twin boltgun.

On another note, plasma cannon/heavy plasma cannon deal the same damage, but the latter is priced 9 pts higher. Why? because it is T7, W8 that has already been paid for in the unit's base cost? Where in the logic of 40k (if any) does it make sense to price two same weapon that does the SAME THING at two different costs, just because one is worse than the other at shooting with the said weapon?

I'm not saying its game breaking - hence we're in general discussion. I'd just like to see the line of logic applied in AM points derivation applied game-wide, if not, not at all.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

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...

Yeah actually it used to be even worse resulting in IG captains paying same for their power fists that made them whopping S6(and being much less likely to survive to swing it) as marines that got to S8. But at least before codexes had format that could have supported it. Now system is one that would make ridiculous looking page.

There was format of codexes where they had prices of weapons o unit's entry. that was how it should have been. If GW had had competence to actually try to balance stuff rather than do just something to sell models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:

Again, why? Weapons themselves already have grades/effectiveness/calibers that are priced accordingly - i.e. rail weapon on pathfinders/broadside/hammerheads. In the same way, Weapons that are named different but have the same stats are priced the same - i.e. storm bolter/twin boltgun; plasma cannon/heavy plasma cannon (why they're called HEAVY plasma cannons dealing same damage, IDFK). Where in the logic of 40k (if any) does it make sense to price two same weapon that does the SAME THING at two different costs, just because one is worse than the other at shooting with the said weapon?

I'm not saying its game breaking - hence we're in general discussion. I'd just like to see the line of logic applied in AM points derivation applied game-wide, if not, not at all.

BEcause of this thing called BALANCE? Or do you want some options to be worthless and others be too good so you can mathammer yourself advantage so that you can win the game before models are even deployed? Or do you want game to be decided on in game decisions?

tneva82 wrote:
Yeah actually it used to be even worse resulting in IG captains paying same for their power fists that made them whopping S6(and being much less likely to survive to swing it) as marines that got to S8. But at least before codexes had format that could have supported it. Now system is one that would make ridiculous looking page

Then by that extension, power fists on marines should cost less than terminator power fists (because they can deepstrike), and power fists on assault marines should cost more than termie PF's since they can deepstrike AND move faster, thereby withstanding less shooting phases, to be more "likely to survive to swing it."

We're not saying that its unbalanced towards AM. We're saying this mechanism work singularly for the benefit of AM, and for no other armies - this isn't balance; it is bias.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
do you want some options to be worthless and others be too good so you can mathammer yourself advantage so that you can win the game before models are even deployed? Or do you want game to be decided on in game decisions?

If you believe mathhammer dictate the final outcome of the game even SOMETIMES, then obviously you haven't played enough games (no offense intended). The element of chance is real.

Mathhammer always dictates the outcome. Part of the math happens to be random. But in many cases the law of large numbers of dice make this predictable. Single lascannons are extremely swingy however. Player decisions ultimately just influence the nature of the math that gets crunched.

 skchsan wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Yeah actually it used to be even worse resulting in IG captains paying same for their power fists that made them whopping S6(and being much less likely to survive to swing it) as marines that got to S8. But at least before codexes had format that could have supported it. Now system is one that would make ridiculous looking page

Then by that extension, power fists on marines should cost less than terminator power fists (because they can deepstrike), and power fists on assault marines should cost more than termie PF's since they can deepstrike AND move faster, thereby withstanding less shooting phases, to be more "likely to survive to swing it."

We're not saying that its unbalanced towards AM. We're saying this mechanism work singularly for the benefit of AM, and for no other armies - this isn't balance; it is bias.

GW hasn't got system perfect ever. Not claiming they have. Before they didn't bother to even consider other factors than stats of weapon for points. Now they do but they have made points to back making even 2 different BS within same book problematic.

Obviously if platform is better for weapon it should be more pricey than same weapon on other platform. That's what I have been saying. Or on alternative example let's imagine squad of assault marines with lascannons. Obviously this unit needs to cost more than devastators as it is useful to have jump packs on devastators it's still losing efficiency on the model as you have lascannon(weapon that wants to stand still) on jump pack(you are paying for ability to move fast). So lascannon here should get discount(obviously not enough to make these cheapest lascannon platforms though)

but GW doesn't care one whit about balance so no chance of this ever being reality. So we are left with one of two bad choices.

If you believe mathhammer dictate the final outcome of the game even SOMETIMES, then obviously you haven't played enough games (no offense intended). The element of chance is real.

There's chance but only fool would claim that army with tons of underpointed units wouldn't have advantage. There's NO BENEFIT WHATSOEVER in having unbalanced game. Nobody. Repeat NOBODY benefits from unbalanced game.

 skchsan wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Yeah actually it used to be even worse resulting in IG captains paying same for their power fists that made them whopping S6(and being much less likely to survive to swing it) as marines that got to S8. But at least before codexes had format that could have supported it. Now system is one that would make ridiculous looking page

Then by that extension, power fists on marines should cost less than terminator power fists (because they can deepstrike), and power fists on assault marines should cost more than termie PF's since they can deepstrike AND move faster, thereby withstanding less shooting phases, to be more "likely to survive to swing it."

We're not saying that its unbalanced towards AM. We're saying this mechanism work singularly for the benefit of AM, and for no other armies - this isn't balance; it is bias.

Because there isnt another broadly BS4+ Imperial army. Thats the slice GW has chosen to cut on, its as granular as they want to get, and its not an awful place to make that distinction. Is it perfect? No. Is it more balanced than IG grunts paying 13pts for plasma guns? Yes.

Such was a perennial issue in several previous IG books, and it worked heavily against IG infantry viability when they paid the same costs as Space Marines for such weapons in previous editions, the infantry units just were always way too expensive for what they offered.

Currently, it doesn't appear to be problem in and of itself, aside from a couple voices that bleat for anything and everything for IG to be nerfed just for its own sake, the differentiated pricing isnt something people have an issue with (rather, its with things like no LoS weapons or Smite platforms or what the appropriate cost of basic IG infantry should be, etc).

tneva82 wrote:
Obviously if platform is better for weapon it should be more pricey than same weapon on other platform. That's what I have been saying. Or on alternative example let's imagine squad of assault marines with lascannons. Obviously this unit needs to cost more than devastators as it is useful to have jump packs on devastators it's still losing efficiency on the model as you have lascannon(weapon that wants to stand still) on jump pack(you are paying for ability to move fast). So lascannon here should get discount(obviously not enough to make these cheapest lascannon platforms though)

But see here, what your suggestion ends up doing is penalizing certain units for being good at what they're designed to be good at... and which they pay extra points for in their base cost in the first place.

Lowering the weapon points option for 'underperforming' units doesn't scale the same way upwards - if you want to equip melee weapons on assault oriented unit, you'd have to pay more those weapons? So they pay extra points, like how scions pay extra for hotshot lasguns and grav chuts vs vets, AND THEN they pay extra for the weapons because they're good at using it?

What I'm trying to get at is that if a mechanic can't/doesn't scale/work for rest of the game, it shouldn't be utilized.

Toughness should 100% NOT be a factor in the price of equipment, because toughness is not a fixed thing on a unit. A squad of guardsman are as tough as space marines when they're in a vehicle, in reserve, or out of LoS. 5th edition actually had a perfect example of this problem: A plas-vet was cheaper than space marines with a similar set up (because obviously the vets are weedier and only have lasguns as their non-special/heavy weapon), and the rhino was cheaper than the chimera because the chimera had more weapons and fire points. Combined, the vets+chimera was cheaper... but was far and away more powerful than the marines in a rhino, because the marines couldn't use their toughness and bolters. Same with deep striking and infiltrating: you basically get a free turn of full damage on the turn you arrive.

Similarily, how do you consider toughness buffs and debuffs? do you base cost assuming the unit will be in cover? What about faction bonus? should there be separate costs for raven guard and iron hand special weapons? consider how un-user friendly that would be (and how much paper that would require)

I can get behind cost changes based on output, but mostly because of modifiers. An assault or heavy weapon is exponentially more useful to a model with high BS than one with low BS, rather than linear.

The problem with cost changes based on output, means that the best unit builds are once again QUANTITY over quality. Why take swingy units when you can take large amounts of low performing units and rely on weight of dice to push your averages through.

Let us use the Scions Plasma Command Squad as an example. BS3 and Deepstrike, pretty good, have access to orders to avoid blowing up on overcharged mode.

They have the ability to hit where they want and to hit it HARD. Their durability doesn't matter, they have one job, they will make their points back unless the opponent has large amounts of low point models so their plasma can't get in double-tap range. They're pretty much a fire and forget unit, how do you cost something like that? They are high quality offensive unit, able to do the lifting of a tactical squad within one turn easily. But they can flub their rolls. Occasionally. But overall they are very low risk medium investment high return. They are a good unit, we all see that. But then let us replace the plasma with melta. All of a sudden they become much worse. Because they have even less reliability (D6 damage), they cost even more than they did previously.

That is the biggest problem is that much of the offensive and defensive stats of the game are focused on scaling point wise LINEARLY. Higher quality units have much less room for error as they get more expensive because you throw less dice. Quality should rise just a bit faster as points for a model goes up. Terminators suffer from this still. As do Knights, Riptides, Eldar Wraith units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This leads into the other side of the issue where a high-quality model is nigh on unkillable, like we saw in 6th, 7th, and to a lesser extent 8th with Primarchs.

 skchsan wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Obviously if platform is better for weapon it should be more pricey than same weapon on other platform. That's what I have been saying. Or on alternative example let's imagine squad of assault marines with lascannons. Obviously this unit needs to cost more than devastators as it is useful to have jump packs on devastators it's still losing efficiency on the model as you have lascannon(weapon that wants to stand still) on jump pack(you are paying for ability to move fast). So lascannon here should get discount(obviously not enough to make these cheapest lascannon platforms though)

But see here, what your suggestion ends up doing is penalizing certain units for being good at what they're designed to be good at... and which they pay extra points for in their base cost in the first place.

Lowering the weapon points option for 'underperforming' units doesn't scale the same way upwards - if you want to equip melee weapons on assault oriented unit, you'd have to pay more those weapons? So they pay extra points, like how scions pay extra for hotshot lasguns and grav chuts vs vets, AND THEN they pay extra for the weapons because they're good at using it?

What I'm trying to get at is that if a mechanic can't/doesn't scale/work for rest of the game, it shouldn't be utilized.

The idea is that a Guard Infantry Squad vs a Guard Veteran Squad vs a Scion Squad vs a Tactical Marine Squad don't necessarily get the same usage out of the same weapons. What is garbage for one might be fantastic for another, and vise versa. If each individual unit gets a price tailored to it for each piece of equipment based on how good/bad it is for them, you will see a swing to "below average - average - above average", rather than say "garbage - bad -below average - average - above average - good - really good - autotake".

A squad of Scions can drop in and get a strong use out of a plasma gun with their good ballistic skill and ability to just show up risk free in double tap range. That same squad equipped with flamers will actually lower its killing power by a decent margin, as it drops in out of range entirely. Meanwhile, a squad of Guard Veterans, which are currently in a bit of a bad place, pay the same price as Scions for the same equipment, but have much less killing power - they either need to hoof it, or purchase a transport to get them where they need to be.

Tactical Marines are, at their very best, considered an "average" unit - even their strongest defenders don't mark them higher as that, and most see them as fairly useless. Would keeping the bodies expensive and making the upgrades cheaper make them more viable? And is a Power Sword in a Tactical Squad worth the same as a Power Sword in an Assault Marine Squad?

Nobody is saying that everything can be fixed overnight - but with lots of rejiggering, playtesting, and so on, individually costing out upgrades on a per unit basis can bring much more balance to the game.

Very broadly - across the meta - naked Guardsmen (and most other cheap chaff) are under costed or Marines are over costed. 13 points gives you pretty poor damage, and hardly exceptional "toughness" too, unless you can bag a cover save.

From a purely theoretical standpoint I can't think of any circumstances where I'd prefer 3 marines with plasma guns to 7 guardsmen with plasma guns. They would expect to do 75% more damage. To be fair you would expect to need 14% more bolter rounds to kill the marines - and 28% lasgun rounds - but then it swings dramatically the other way if you start throwing out plasma yourself (it takes 55% more regular plasma shots to kill the guardsmen than the marines).

 skchsan wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Yeah actually it used to be even worse resulting in IG captains paying same for their power fists that made them whopping S6(and being much less likely to survive to swing it) as marines that got to S8. But at least before codexes had format that could have supported it. Now system is one that would make ridiculous looking page

Then by that extension, power fists on marines should cost less than terminator power fists (because they can deepstrike), and power fists on assault marines should cost more than termie PF's since they can deepstrike AND move faster, thereby withstanding less shooting phases, to be more "likely to survive to swing it."

We're not saying that its unbalanced towards AM. We're saying this mechanism work singularly for the benefit of AM, and for no other armies - this isn't balance; it is bias.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
do you want some options to be worthless and others be too good so you can mathammer yourself advantage so that you can win the game before models are even deployed? Or do you want game to be decided on in game decisions?

If you believe mathhammer dictate the final outcome of the game even SOMETIMES, then obviously you haven't played enough games (no offense intended). The element of chance is real.

You are so full of garbage here, lol.

Look, for one thing, this doesn't only benefit guardsmen. As I've pointed out, Genestealer Cult gets identical rules for all their weapons, and still manage to be one of the weaker factions in the game.

Second, whether or not they actually call their weapons "plasma guns" or "melta guns" other factions do get access to very comparable weaponry on different base platforms, and they have variable pricing as well. Ork weaponry would be absurdly high value if you handed it to a space marine, which is pretty much how it's always been.

Moan about guard all you like, but at least be honest about the reasons that theyre strong.

You mean about the fact they have:
1. best WPP weapons
2. highest wound count in typical 2k pt army
3. highest model count per army
4. cheapest units
5. easiest to accrue most cp
6. most board control
7. most army wide strategems
8. most heavy weapons
9. most special weapons
10. discount heavy/special weapons
11. spammable buff auras/orders

No, I'm actually cool with that as long as they have 1 weakness. AM right now is puttingout "sword" in a game of rock paper scissors. They literally have 0 weakness a.k.a. the ONLY army you cant cripple in turn 1.

I understand tau codex hasnt been released yet to address all the absurd points they have right now - but army as a whole barring characters have bs 4 or worse, designed around the NECESSITY of marker lights. Why are they not priced at AMs range then?

How do you justify termagaunts, when they cost the same as a guardsmen, have worse Ld, worse guns, worse save, and have penalties if not within synapse? Cheap, spammable thing in the game usually has to be synergized with higher costed buffing characters.

AM is the only army that functions up to par with baseline due to sheer weight of dice, which then gets augmented further with the budget-most (if thats even a word) characters. AM literally is the only army you can double brigade without bringing absolutely garbage units (fast attacks are pretty garbage).But I digress.

I'm talking about AM specific bias the game currently has. Its not they're OP - the current mechanics of the game as a whole is biased towards AM (board coverage to deny deep strike, mitigation against multi damage weapons, fall back, almost negates morale, etc ). And if youre denying that fact, youre the one "so full of gabage here, lol."

There a too many factors to account for when assessing the value of a weapon. You think that durability is one, but the opponent's list is even more important, not to mention the scenario being played.
You can create a formula that gives the exact point cost a weapon? Probably. Is it practical for use? No.
GW decided to stop this formula at the first order, which is BS value, since it is always the most important parameter influencing a weapon. That's the correct decision IMHO. Including successive orders would make it more and more cumbersome with little gain.

 skchsan wrote:
You mean about the fact they have:
1. best WPP weapons
2. highest wound count in typical 2k pt army
3. highest model count per army
4. cheapest units
5. easiest to accrue most cp
6. most board control
7. most army wide strategems
8. most heavy weapons
9. most special weapons
10. discount heavy/special weapons
11. spammable buff auras/orders

No, I'm actually cool with that as long as they have 1 weakness. AM right now is puttingout "sword" in a game of rock paper scissors. They literally have 0 weakness a.k.a. the ONLY army you cant cripple in turn 1.

I understand tau codex hasnt been released yet to address all the absurd points they have right now - but army as a whole barring characters have bs 4 or worse, designed around the NECESSITY of marker lights. Why are they not priced at AMs range then?

How do you justify termagaunts, when they cost the same as a guardsmen, have worse Ld, worse guns, worse save, and have penalties if not within synapse? Cheap, spammable thing in the game usually has to be synergized with higher costed buffing characters.

AM is the only army that functions up to par with baseline due to sheer weight of dice, which then gets augmented further with the budget-most (if thats even a word) characters. AM literally is the only army you can double brigade without bringing absolutely garbage units (fast attacks are pretty garbage).But I digress.

I'm talking about AM specific bias the game currently has. Its not they're OP - the current mechanics of the game as a whole is biased towards AM (board coverage to deny deep strike, mitigation against multi damage weapons, fall back, almost negates morale, etc ). And if youre denying that fact, youre the one "so full of gabage here, lol."

Zero weaknesses, which is why when you look at who's winning at recent tournaments (https://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2017/12/19/top-itc-tournament-lists-november-2017/) you see....a pretty even spread of the factions that are known to be good between Space Marines, Sisters, Chaos Marines, Chaos Daemons, Eldar, Tyranids, and Astra Militarum.

Keep in mind this data is pre chapter-approved and pre BA/DA, the biggest thing up in the air in the competitive scene is how much will chapter approved put the kibosh on chaos soup lists.

I made a post calling you out for just wildly and blindly latching onto anything that would allow you to nerf AM, regardless of whether it's actually fair or the right way to go about it, and you respond with...just insanity, I don't know. AM is generally considered the strongest single faction in the game, but if there was "AM specific bias" in the game design, you probably wouldn't see them relatively equally represented among the competitive factions in tournament play, and you probably wouldn't see every release where they got rules changes post-codex being pretty much nothing but nerfs.

It's difficult to respond to what you've put forward here because so much of it is just so incomprehensible. AM is the only faction in the game that wins with weight of dice? What is alpha legion bezerkers+Oblits? What is competitive green tide orks? What is tyranid alpha strike? tons of competitive factions win with weight of dice. Do you actually think things like "The most special weapons" and "Cheapest units" are actually indicators of competitiveness (disregarding the fact that both of those are actually wrong, see: codex Eldar, brimstone horrors, etc)?

The major AM weaknesses are generally considered to be assault alpha strike and negative to-hit modifiers, which is again pretty self evident and obvious if you take a look at what you see run against them competitively.

The summation of your point here seems to just be listing random rules in the game. AM "Almost entirely mitigates morale" by..what exactly? Being able to add 1 to the leadership of their squads? You know we've got factions with army-wide fearless and army-wide old commissar rule, right? What mitigation against multi-damage weapons? As far as I know, AM don't have anything that reduces the amount of damage that multi damage weapons do. Fall back? I guess, it certainly doesn't benefit AM quite as much as one of the armies that has almost everything with the Fly rule, that's for sure.

Show me on the doll where the bad man put his basilisk, I guess. AM are a great army right now. I'm not sure how that equates to a sinister GW conspiracy, but that seems to be somewhat of the consensus on the forums here, bizarrely enough. You do you.

Yeah, AM are pretty powerful right now. But, at the top levels of competitive play, they're fairly well-spread, sprinkled among other strong lists, now and again taking 1st, other times yielding first.

The reason I think AM seems to be the strongest faction is because of a factor I call "WAAC-ness".

In the history of 40k, tournament armies used to be pretty "WAAC-y" - in other words, there were identifiable builds that were 100% optimal but not very lore-appropriate or even reasonable from any standpoint other than winning. Take a look at some of the Chaos superfriends lists: Aetos'rau'kheres, Magnus, and Mortarion all at the same battle and even in the same detachment at 2k points (not anymore but you'll see my point). That's identifiably WAAC.

What Guard have done is taken a reasonably built army, and then shown up at the top tables with it and won. This means you can't scream WAAC at the tournament players, and you can't accuse a player playing it locally of playing to win. It's a fun & fluffy list that also happens to be strong - which means it removes that awkward "social pressure" element to conform; i.e., it is possible to play in a manner that a CAAC player might approve of, and still have a very strong winning list. I don't think some CAAC players know how to handle it, and won't change their lists, so they default to hating the codex.

It seems like youre misunderstanding the point of this post.

The thread is about the fallacy of the system of balancing through adjustment of weapon costs based on the platforms effectiveness with the weapon. Particular example of this is the BS3 plasma/melta vs BS4 plasma/melta example - which so happens to occur in AM.

Typically, a units performance is built into its PPM. That is to say, the PPM is indicative of the units performance. Similarly, (although very poorly translated from 7th to 8th) weapons too, are priced accordingly to its stats - range, number of shots, weapon type, strength, & AP).

Now, lets take the BS based weapon cost into play, with an example we have. For the purpose of this example, we'll set BS4 as the baseline case.
If BS4 plasma costs 7 points, and BS3 plasma gun costs 13. Here we see roughly 186% increase in cost from BS4 to BS3. Now lets apply the same rate of increase to different BS values.

BS6 = [Cost of plasma gun @ BS5] / 186% ~ 2 points (-71% from base)
BS5 = [Cost of plasma gun @ BS4] / 186% ~ 4 points (-46% from base)
BS4 = 7
BS3 = [Cost of plasma gun @ BS4] x 186% ~13 points (+86% from base)
BS2 = [Cost of plasma gun @ BS3] x 186% ~24 points (+245% from base)

Meltagun: 17 / 12 = 1.42

BS6 = [Cost of meltagun @ BS5] / 142% ~ 6 points (-50% from base)
BS5 = [Cost of meltagun @ BS4] / 142% ~ 8 points (-29% from base)
BS4 = 12
BS3 = [Cost of meltagun @ BS4] x 142% ~17 points (+42% from base)
BS2 = [Cost of meltagun @ BS3] x 142% ~24 points (+101% from base)

Excuse the example as it cannot take into account for all of the complex equation that goes into determining a point value of a model. But here we see that adjusting a weapon cost according to the BS of the platform, we see an exponential rise to the cost of the weapon as BS improves, while BS remains a linearly increasing stat.

Again, I emphasize, that BS cannot be the only stat that is taken into consideration - but also then serves as a support for my argument - due to the complexity required to "balance out the game" via adjusting point cost of weapons based on the platform performance, the point cost system for weapons and models should remain separated.

Please don't make this into another "UHMURGUSH, NOT ANOTHER AM IS OP THREAD" thread.
I thank you in advance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In alternative calculation, applying a linear point reduction if you're unsatisfied that BS based scale shouldn't be that of exponential one:

Plasmagun: 86% increase ~6 pt
BS6 = [Cost of plasma gun @ BS5] - 86% ~ -5 points (-171% from base)
BS5 = [Cost of plasma gun @ BS4] - 86% ~ 1 points (-86% from base)
BS4 = 7
BS3 = [Cost of plasma gun @ BS4] + 86% ~13 points (+86% from base)
BS2 = [Cost of plasma gun @ BS3] + 86% ~19 points (+171% from base)

Meltagun: 42% increase ~5 pt
BS6 = [Cost of meltagun @ BS5] - 42% ~ 2 points (-83% from base)
BS5 = [Cost of meltagun @ BS4] - 42% ~ 7 points (-42% from base)
BS4 = 12
BS3 = [Cost of meltagun @ BS4] - 42% ~17 points (+42% from base)
BS2 = [Cost of meltagun @ BS3] - 42% ~22 points (+83% from base)

Scaling weapon cost per platform isn't a working solution.

I understand your maths, I just don't see the point of why you posted it? What point were you trying to make by demonstrating a linear function is a linear function and an exponential function is an exponential function?

 skchsan wrote:
Again, I emphasize, that BS cannot be the only stat that is taken into consideration - but also then serves as a support for my argument - due to the complexity required to "balance out the game" via adjusting point cost of weapons based on the platform performance, the point cost system for weapons and models should remain separated.

If your point is that compounding stuff makes stuff more complicated all I can say is I'd rather have something complicated and balanced than simple and unbalanced.

The issue with your argument is that It assumes that those points costs are correctly balanced, and it assumes that the difference in points cost must be adjusted by the same amount for each BS increase/decrease.

But if we look at the effectiveness of a plasma gun rapid firing.

BS 6 = 0.33 hits = 50% decrease on BS 5
BS 5 = 0.67 hits = 33% decrease on BS 4
BS 4 = 1 hit
BS 3 = 1.33 hits = 133% increase on BS 4
BS 2 = 1.67 hits = 125% increase on BS 3

SO if BS 4 is 7 points maybe the correct points would be

BS 6 = 5 * .5 = 3 points
BS 5 = 7 * .67 = 5 points
BS 4 = 7 points
BS 3 = 7 * 1.33 = 9 points
BS 2 = 9 * 1.25 = 11 points

Or if we assume that 7 and 13 are the correct prices but that the increases decreases beyond that are done as a matter of change in effectiveness. You might end up with

BS 6 = 2
BS 5 = 4
BS 4 = 7
BS 3 = 13
BS 2 = 18

In the end though more than just BS should determine the price of the weapon.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I understand your maths, I just don't see the point of why you posted it? What point were you trying to make by demonstrating a linear function is a linear function and an exponential function is an exponential function?

That it's a system that favors quantity as "quality" units have exponentially higher cost of bringing "better weapons." If you get 'point reductions because you have BS4', then logically it should be able to be applied as 'increase because you have BS2'. It's a non-uniform application of a mechanic for the sake of "balance."

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
If your point is that compounding stuff makes stuff more complicated all I can say is I'd rather have something complicated and balanced than simple and unbalanced.

My point isn't to say to not balance the game. As posted earlier, having a BS4 plasma costing only 7 pt doesn't break the game. It is a commentary that discounting weapons based on the platform characteristic is a fallacious rationale.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:
The issue with your argument is that It assumes that those points costs are correctly balanced, and it assumes that the difference in points cost must be adjusted by the same amount for each BS increase/decrease.

But if we look at the effectiveness of a plasma gun rapid firing.

BS 6 = 0.33 hits = 50% decrease on BS 5
BS 5 = 0.67 hits = 33% decrease on BS 4
BS 4 = 1 hit
BS 3 = 1.33 hits = 133% increase on BS 4
BS 2 = 1.67 hits = 125% increase on BS 3

SO if BS 4 is 7 points maybe the correct points would be

BS 6 = 5 * .5 = 3 points
BS 5 = 7 * .67 = 5 points
BS 4 = 7 points
BS 3 = 7 * 1.33 = 9 points
BS 2 = 9 * 1.25 = 11 points

Or if we assume that 7 and 13 are the correct prices but that the increases decreases beyond that are done as a matter of change in effectiveness. You might end up with

BS 6 = 2
BS 5 = 4
BS 4 = 7
BS 3 = 13
BS 2 = 18

In the end though more than just BS should determine the price of the weapon.

This is a good point.

But it leads back to the issue of performance already being paid for in the PPM. A guardsmen costs 4 pt because of its stats, marines cost 13 pt because, captains because... etc.

I feel that adjusting weapon cost because of model performance is double dipping, in both directions (cheaper units, cheaper weapons; expensive units, expensive weapons).

Whilst I understand the logic of weapon costing less for models who can benefit from it less (especially in case of power fists, where the strength is affected along with to-hit). I have to question whether this should be applied to plasma. Due how the overcharge rules work, cheap plasma on cheap model is deceptively good, as you can overchage with impunity, risking to lose very little.

 skchsan wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I understand your maths, I just don't see the point of why you posted it? What point were you trying to make by demonstrating a linear function is a linear function and an exponential function is an exponential function?

That it's a system that favors quantity as "quality" units have exponentially higher cost of bringing "better weapons." If you get 'point reductions because you have BS4', then logically it should be able to be applied as 'increase because you have BS2'. It's a non-uniform application of a mechanic for the sake of "balance."

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
If your point is that compounding stuff makes stuff more complicated all I can say is I'd rather have something complicated and balanced than simple and unbalanced.

My point isn't to say to not balance the game. As posted earlier, having a BS4 plasma costing only 7 pt doesn't break the game. It is a commentary that discounting weapons based on the platform characteristic is a fallacious rationale.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:
The issue with your argument is that It assumes that those points costs are correctly balanced, and it assumes that the difference in points cost must be adjusted by the same amount for each BS increase/decrease.

But if we look at the effectiveness of a plasma gun rapid firing.

BS 6 = 0.33 hits = 50% decrease on BS 5
BS 5 = 0.67 hits = 33% decrease on BS 4
BS 4 = 1 hit
BS 3 = 1.33 hits = 133% increase on BS 4
BS 2 = 1.67 hits = 125% increase on BS 3

SO if BS 4 is 7 points maybe the correct points would be

BS 6 = 5 * .5 = 3 points
BS 5 = 7 * .67 = 5 points
BS 4 = 7 points
BS 3 = 7 * 1.33 = 9 points
BS 2 = 9 * 1.25 = 11 points

Or if we assume that 7 and 13 are the correct prices but that the increases decreases beyond that are done as a matter of change in effectiveness. You might end up with

BS 6 = 2
BS 5 = 4
BS 4 = 7
BS 3 = 13
BS 2 = 18

In the end though more than just BS should determine the price of the weapon.

This is a good point.

But it leads back to the issue of performance already being paid for in the PPM. A guardsmen costs 4 pt because of its stats, marines cost 13 pt because, captains because... etc.

I feel that adjusting weapon cost because of model performance is double dipping, in both directions (cheaper units, cheaper weapons; expensive units, expensive weapons).

Personally I would not factor BS into the base model much at all, and instead factor it into the gun. If you don't have a gun having BS 2+ is pretty meaningless, same if the only gun you have an option to take is say a las pistol. Guns are actually pretty easy to do this for. Melee weapons are harder because attacks, strength, and WS matter.

The issue with the idea is that they already paid for those stats is hard argue because there are models with identical stats that cost different points, and points are not really granular enough to balance out slight differences. There are also things that cause issues like multiple weapons being taken in single squads. Right now in this game offense is king and so adding a lot of value for stats that are less important causes balance swings. For instance look at sucide kill squads. If I want a squad to drop in kill something and then expect to die, am I better off with 5 terminators, or 5 guardsman assuming they have the exact same weapons. (Theoretical units) The terminators are going to cost me 200 ish points (10 BS 3 plasma shots), the guardsman will cost me say 60 (10 BS 4 plasma shots). So the actual comparison is do I want those 5 terminators or 15 guardsman or 10 BS 3 shots vs 40 BS 4 shots. What if I could take deepstriking marines for 140 points, now we are looking at 10 guardsman or 5 marines. If I assume all these models are going to die, then isn't better damage output the most desirable thing?

 skchsan wrote:
It is a commentary that discounting weapons based on the platform characteristic is a fallacious rationale.

except its not, and we have the proof of previous editions where IG infantry units were perennially left on the shelf because they could never provide reasonable value relative to both internal and external counterparts when they paid the same price as Space Marines for equipment. The value of a weapon absolutely changes depending on its context, the basic platform doesn't cover its value in all contexts, and there's a reason weapons have had different costs on different units in many editions (albeit inconsistently, as is the case now too). All we're really quibbling about is where GW drew the line in this case.

The economic concepts of utility and marginal value are just as much at work here as anywhere else, and context really does matter. If you give an AR15 to a 12 year old child conscript, the marginal value of that rifle to the fighting force is less than if it were given to a trained and veteran 25 year old. The acquisition cost of the rifle is the same, but the value to the fighting force is dramatically different depending on who wields it. There's a reason why people not in fighting roles get less expensive and less capable weapons like handguns, the added investment in a full sized fighting weapon doesn't add proportional value, regardless of the absolute value of the weapon. Same reason armies built around short service conscripts produce weapons like the AK or G3, simple, inexpensive and easy to produce weapons that have the ergonomics of a brick, while armies built around professional long term volunteers have more expensive weapons that their troops are able to get more marginal value out of. If you get a sweet new long range designated marksmans rifle, you give it to the best shot in the unit, where it provides the best value, it's dramatically less effective (and thus has a lower value) in the hands of the worst shot in the unit (who may otherwise cost as much to equip, train, feed, etc and who may be functionally as capable with automatic burst fire from an assault rifle at human sized targets a hundred meters away as anyone else). That's not just an issue of the original platform, the weapon's value is very much contextual relative to its platform.

The Plasma Caliver can pretty much only be considered a straight upgrade over a Plasma Gun any day, it is available on a platform superior to a base guardsman in ballistic skill and defenses.

Does this mean the game system is unfairly biased towards admech? Frick no. Weapon options are priced the way they are to provide the game designers a balance lever to adjust them up and down without messing with the base cost of the model. If a unit or option is overpowered, its cost should be increased for that unit or option.

The only reason that people in this thread are complaining about the pricing of the guard plasma gun and the space marine plasma gun and not the space marine plasma gun and the plasma caliver is that it's easier to point at something with the same name and yell "this is unfair!" It's just as meaningless to argue that the space marine and Tau plasma guns should have the same price because they have the same names as well.

Cue another half page off topic rant about how this system should be slapped onto all armies because guard is overpowered.

the_scotsman wrote:
The Plasma Caliver can pretty much only be considered a straight upgrade over a Plasma Gun any day, it is available on a platform superior to a base guardsman in ballistic skill and defenses.

Does this mean the game system is unfairly biased towards admech? Frick no. Weapon options are priced the way they are to provide the game designers a balance lever to adjust them up and down without messing with the base cost of the model. If a unit or option is overpowered, its cost should be increased for that unit or option.

The only reason that people in this thread are complaining about the pricing of the guard plasma gun and the space marine plasma gun and not the space marine plasma gun and the plasma caliver is that it's easier to point at something with the same name and yell "this is unfair!" It's just as meaningless to argue that the space marine and Tau plasma guns should have the same price because they have the same names as well.

Cue another half page off topic rant about how this system should be slapped onto all armies because guard is overpowered.

It is about a break even with a plasma gun (better from 12-18, worse 18-24, but can advance and shoot) maybe slightly better, and costs the same as a BS 3 plasma gun. The space marine plasma gun has the same cost the plasma caliver for basically an equivalent gun. IT also has no easy way to get into range, so not necessarily better.

the_scotsman wrote:
The Plasma Caliver can pretty much only be considered a straight upgrade over a Plasma Gun any day, it is available on a platform superior to a base guardsman in ballistic skill and defenses.

Does this mean the game system is unfairly biased towards admech? Frick no. Weapon options are priced the way they are to provide the game designers a balance lever to adjust them up and down without messing with the base cost of the model. If a unit or option is overpowered, its cost should be increased for that unit or option.

As stated, weapons with same stats but with different names can cost the same, namely Plasma Caliver and Plasma Talons. Ravenwing Black Knight's (RBK) plasma talons require a bit of calculation to isolate the point cost of the weapon as it's built into the unit cost. We can deduce from its stats that:

RBK = SM Bike + Vet upgrade (+1A, +1Ld) + Plas Talon + Corvus Hammer (a flavor of power weapon: a power maul with -1S but with crit component)

Where:

RBK = 46 pts
Bike = 25 pts
Vet upgrade = Vet PPM (16 pt) - Marine PPM (13 pt) = 3 pts

Now we'll assume that Corvus hammer is just a flavor of power weapons and:
Corvus Hammer = Flavor of power maul = 4 pts

Solving for cost of plasma talon:

Plasma Talon = RBK - Bike - Vet upgrade - CH = 46 - 25 - 3 - 4 = 14 pts

Here we see the consistency that GW put forth that the cost is the same for weapons that does the same thing albeit with different names, despite the fact that RBK's are without a doubt far superior unit, because he has already paid 25 more points for it.

the_scotsman wrote:
The only reason that people in this thread are complaining about the pricing of the guard plasma gun and the space marine plasma gun and not the space marine plasma gun and the plasma caliver is that it's easier to point at something with the same name and yell "this is unfair!" It's just as meaningless to argue that the space marine and Tau plasma guns should have the same price because they have the same names as well.

Cue another half page off topic rant about how this system should be slapped onto all armies because guard is overpowered.

The reason why guardsmen and marines are compared is because of BS3/BS4 plasmagun platform discussion. Your example of Rangesr vs Guardsmen isn't a good apples-to-apple comparison because it digresses from the BS based weapon point adjustments.

Now, taking the Tau's Plasma Rifle vs Guardsmen's Plasmaguns, where both Crisis and Guardsman has BS4
Plasmagun: 24"/Rapid Fire 1/S7(8)/AP-3/D1(2) @ 7 pts
Plasma Rifle: 24"/Rapid Fire 1/S6/AP-3/D1 @ 11 pts.

Clearly the plasma rifle is worse than AM BS4 plasma gun even at standard profile, and yet it's 4 points higher.

Again, this isnt about how "OP AM is right now" discussion. It just happens so that this particular mechanic is applied only for AM only, which I find a bit odd.
Do I think the 'value of the weapon' is different per platform? Yes, absolutely. Does the point system in the game reflect the 'value of the weapon'? No, I think it reflects the 'acquisition cost' of the weapon.

Would you equip a foot slogging dev squad with multimeltas if you're not going to buy them a droppod? Not likely, because its potentials would be wasted if not dropped at its melta range to get its mileage out.

The Tau Plasma Rifle, IIRC, is only available on T4 3+sv multiwound Jet suits with an array of abilities and Deep Strike potential, as opposed to being run on T3 single wound 5+sv footslogging infantry. Again, different platforms, different value.