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.

Its a simple enough question, listed in the thread's title.

How many points would you pay for Guardsmen in a Veteran Squad to carry Boltguns instead of Lasguns.

Typically, upgrading any member of the Guard to carry a boltgun has always been a 1 point purchase. However, that's typically attached to models like Sergeants, Commissars, Company Commands, Platoon Commanders, etc etc. Considering how much cheaper a standard Guardsman, even a Veteran, is, I'd think it would be something like 2 PPM. Would it maybe be better to pay a flat 10-20 points for the entire unit to be upgraded instead? Perhaps roll it into the Grenadier Doctrine and up the price another 10 points?

If its a flat purchase, I'd probably say 10 points would be fair. That's technically 1 PPM, but then how often do you have just a base points Veteran squad without loading them up with Special & Heavy weapons? A fully kitted out squad with 3 Specials and a HWT in place of two Vets would only get 5 models with Boltguns anyway (6 if the HWT gets to replace their lasgun with a Boltgun too), meaning you'd actually be more likely to pay 2 PPM.

Also, if you think giving Bolters to Guardsmen feels wrong due to them being Guardsmen, how about a reason to ever take shotguns? Maybe make them a purchase for 1 PPM (or a flat 10 for the unit) and buff their strength to 4?

The whole reason I bring this up is the fact that I've been playing some 500 point lists with a friend, on the rare occasion I get to play 40K at all. At that points level, everything has to be carrying its weight, and since platoons are more-or-less too expensive, I typically end up having Veteran squads on the field. Often, I'm firing 5 or so Lasguns, and they just can't do the job. Its rare to get solid wounding against the average Toughness 4 you run into, even with the superior BS of 4 the Veterans offer.

Is there a real, solid reason to keep Str 4 out of the hands of Veteran who aren't wielding special/heavy weapons?

Bolt guns are supposed to be too heavy, wth too much recoil, for a standard human to wield easily, and they are typically carefully maintained ritual weapons also, while lashins are dirt cheap and simple so anyone can keep it working.

In Necromunda lashins passed a check to see if they had jammed, run out of ammo, etc; on a 2+. For Bolyguns it was a 6.

That all said, as a limited upgrade for some veterans, I suppose it wouldn't be too bad.

If you're playing 500pts you shouldn't need to wound with lasguns, I assume you're doing 2 troops and 1 HQ, so barebones CCS, LRBT with a BC and as many plasmas as you can fit on 2 squads of veterans.

 Slaanesh-Devotee wrote:
Bolt guns are supposed to be too heavy, wth too much recoil, for a standard human to wield easily.

Thrre are Astartes-pattern boltguns (which actually deal more damage in FFG), SoB Godwin-pattern boltguns, and a boltguns, meant to be used bu mortals without powered armour. That later ones are actually slower and have recoil dampeners. Per current rules they're already available for IG characters as an alternative ranged weapon for only 3 pts.

As fore the shotguns, manstopper shells, marine scouts use in their shotguns are fairly expensive and are not mass-produced, which means its easier supplying Guard units with bolts, despite them being almost es expensive.

 BrotherOfBone wrote:
If you're playing 500pts you shouldn't need to wound with lasguns, I assume you're doing 2 troops and 1 HQ, so barebones CCS, LRBT with a BC and as many plasmas as you can fit on 2 squads of veterans.

I manage to get the vets pulling their weight (and/or the rest of the list making up for it). At 500 I run this list:

Astra Militarum (500)
HQ
CCS - carapace armour, vox, flamer (83)

TROOPS
Veteran Squad - bolter, vox, lascannon (86)
Veteran Squad - bolter, vox, lascannon (86)

FAST ATTACK
2 Scout Sentinels - 2 MLs, HKM (90)
Valkyrie - lascannon, hvy bolters (155)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On topic: if you're going to give a full squad of vets bolters I recon it should be at least 3pts per model. Not only are you upping the S by one but you're also upping the AP by 2 and therefore ignoring several races armour altogether (read: Orks, Nids, guard, Tau and half of Eldar, amongst other units).

Edit: spelling

3 pts is a price acceptable for characters, but not for a regular mooks. Ignoring 5+ armour is not that big of a deal, since, well, its only 5+, and units with such low armour usually have cover or invuln anyways.

I think realistically it is not worth putting bolters on all guardsman for 3pts per model, let alone that it flies in the face of the fluff that bolter recoil would rip a mans arm clean off.

If you ran a list with 40 vets (seems to be about the norm when I face 1500pt armies, sometimes more, consider each 10 has 3 specials that's 28 regular infantry men, so 84 pts to bolter them all up.

You could buy another squad of vets with 3 grenade launchers for that.

If it's a choice of 28 bolters with AP5 shooting at people in cover or another 10 meatshields.....

Yeah, 3 points is getting them dangerously close to things with a lot more durability and bolters, such as Sisters or Scouts.

I'd probably say 2 per would be reasonable.

Mezmerro wrote:

 Slaanesh-Devotee wrote:
Bolt guns are supposed to be too heavy, wth too much recoil, for a standard human to wield easily.

Thrre are Astartes-pattern boltguns (which actually deal more damage in FFG), SoB Godwin-pattern boltguns, and a boltguns, meant to be used bu mortals without powered armour. That later ones are actually slower and have recoil dampeners. Per current rules they're already available for IG characters as an alternative ranged weapon for only 3 pts.

As fore the shotguns, manstopper shells, marine scouts use in their shotguns are fairly expensive and are not mass-produced, which means its easier supplying Guard units with bolts, despite them being almost es expensive.

3 pts is a price acceptable for characters, but not for a regular mooks. Ignoring 5+ armour is not that big of a deal, since, well, its only 5+, and units with such low armour usually have cover or invuln anyways.

 Brother Payne wrote:
On topic: if you're going to give a full squad of vets bolters I recon it should be at least 3pts per model. Not only are you upping the S by one but you're also upping the AP by 2 and therefore ignoring several races armour altogether (read: Orks, Nids, guard, Tau and half of Eldar, amongst other units).

I'm not sure I've read the lore stating the manstopper rounds SM Scouts use are more expensive, but its not a point I'll really argue. Still, I have to imagine making a more powerful shotgun shell for existing shotguns has got to be less expensive than issuing an entirely different gun as well as ammunition unique to that weapon. I will agree that bolters are far more common as a weapon in the Imperium, since every Space Marine, Space Marine Scout, and Sister of Battle carries one. Not that those are all especially common in the Imperium, of course. Heck, even way back in the older Catachan rules, Guardsmen had access to bolts in order to booby trap terrain. I'm curious if the barrel and chamber of a shotgun could accomodate a bolter round? Maybe you could just pay 10 points for the entire squad to load bolts into their shotguns and give them an alternative ranged profile of 12" Str 4, AP 5 Assault 1. It'd be kind of like a slug.

However, I'm not really following where you're saying IG characters pay 3 points for a Bolter. Unless my version of the Astra Militarum codex isn't properly updated or something, the upgrade to a Bolt Pistol or Boltgun is 1 point in the Ranged Weapons section of the Wargear list. Additionally, in Codex - Inquisition, an Acolyte, who's base cost is 4, and comes with the stat line of a Guardsman, and carries a Laspistol, Chainsword, and Flak Armor, thus a 1 point discount for no Frag Grenades, only has to pay 1 point to be upgraded with a Boltgun. He pays 3 points to be upgraded to a Stormbolter. Now, granted, an Inquisitor can probably get a hold of gear slightly more easily than a Guardsmen Veteran could, but as it stands, GW has clearly set the upgrade cost to 1 point for a GEQ to get his hands on a Bolter. Although, we do know GW has a serious hardon for homogenizing these things.

Still, I don't think 1 point of AP is really equivalent to 1 point of pricing in game by any means. It seems Strength is far, far more valuable than AP in this regard. Besides, let's be honest here, 5+ Armor save is a joke in 40K. Aside from a few weapons the IG use, the only time you'll get that save is against non-special weapon CC attacks.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
Yeah, 3 points is getting them dangerously close to things with a lot more durability and bolters, such as Sisters or Scouts.

I'd probably say 2 per would be reasonable.

Adding to the quote above, at 3 points per model extra, a Veteran would now be 9 points. This places them at the same cost as a Firewarrior, who's got a 4+ armor save, 1 less Ini, 1 less BS & WS, 1 more Strength on their gun, an extra 6" of range, a better version of a Frag Grenade (Plasmas are Str 4, AP 4), and a special rule. Does the increase to BS, WS, Ini balance out against the decrease in Grenade power, Strength, Range, Armor save, and lack of special rule? I'm not so sure.

You know, the more I look at it, the more I almost have to go with GW pricing on the Boltgun. Or at least, with a flat 10 point upgrade for the entire Vet Squad. I still would prefer a reason to ever take shotguns though.

Edit: Forgot Support Fire

Aren't the Inquisition's acolytes statted the same as Guardsmen? They can also be given flak armor and boltguns, so why not use the same points costs in Codex: Inquisition?

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Aren't the Inquisition's acolytes statted the same as Guardsmen?

Yes, at 1 ppm. Oddly enough, this is the same cost Codex AM puts on them.

I say 1 ppm as it is what the codex says, i like the set in stone systems.

DarkTraveler777 wrote:Aren't the Inquisition's acolytes statted the same as Guardsmen? They can also be given flak armor and boltguns, so why not use the same points costs in Codex: Inquisition?

DarkTraveler777 wrote:Aren't the Inquisition's acolytes statted the same as Guardsmen? They can also be given flak armor and boltguns, so why not use the same points costs in Codex: Inquisition?

DarknessEternal wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Aren't the Inquisition's acolytes statted the same as Guardsmen?

Yes, at 1 ppm. Oddly enough, this is the same cost Codex AM puts on them.

Yes, in my above post, I pointed out base Acolytes are actually 1 point cheaper than a default Guardsman due to a lack of frag grenades. However, I was more giving some leeway to players who might, for some reason, object to Guardsmen getting Boltguns for that cheap. Frankly, I'm really digging the 10 points for the entire squad option. Feels the most reasonable.

1 ppm sounds about right. Maybe have a 0-5 restriction per squad to represent the weapon's rarity.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Aren't the Inquisition's acolytes statted the same as Guardsmen? They can also be given flak armor and boltguns, so why not use the same points costs in Codex: Inquisition?

Acolytes don't benefit from orders, and are an elite choice. That said, I'd say acolytes are under-priced for bolter packing guys.

Not really related but I always thought its funny to think that given the millions of imperial guard platoons there are in the galaxy there are probably more plasma gun and meltaguns than there are Astartes boltguns.

If it's 3pts to give a character a IG character a boltgun I'd saying giving it to troops 1-2 pts.

Considering you can get a Storm Bolter on an Acolyte (granted they're an Elite choice, but still) for 3 points, I think the following option would be reasonable:

Shock Troops (15 pts) - The entire squad replaces any equipped Lasgun with a Boltgun.

That means you're paying the same flat fee for 9 Veterans to have Bolters (with no specials, ~1.5 ppm) or 4 Veterans to have Bolters (with 3 specials and 1 HWT, ~4 ppm).

We have an IG character (Harker) who is hulking around a Relentless Heavy Bolter. I'm pretty sure regular Veterans can tote standard Bolters (even if they are 'human-sized') without too much trouble.

DoW

 NydusTemplar wrote:


Adding to the quote above, at 3 points per model extra, a Veteran would now be 9 points. This places them at the same cost as a Firewarrior, who's got a 4+ armor save, 1 less Ini, 1 less BS & WS, 1 more Strength on their gun, an extra 6" of range, a better version of a Frag Grenade (Plasmas are Str 4, AP 4), and a special rule. Does the increase to BS, WS, Ini balance out against the decrease in Grenade power, Strength, Range, Armor save, and lack of special rule? I'm not so sure.

You know, the more I look at it, the more I almost have to go with GW pricing on the Boltgun. Or at least, with a flat 10 point upgrade for the entire Vet Squad. I still would prefer a reason to ever take shotguns though.

Edit: Forgot Support Fire

One correction, Fire Warriors carry defensive grenades not plasma grenades, otherwise I agree, 1 ppm is fine for a veteran guardsman to carry a bolter. If the question is about how bolters are too big, that is people thinking of astartes pattern bolters, and if the question is about rarity, try to remember that guardsman are supposed to be notorious for scavenging stuff they need, and therefore a veteran would be better equipped than the new guys .

Noc

I'm not sure why people think that a 1 point upgrade on a BS3 unit should be a 1 point upgrade on a BS4 unit.
I'd be fine with 2ppm on vets.

Isn't a bolter a 1 point upgrade on the models that have BS4 in the AM codex as well?

Nocturus wrote:

One correction, Fire Warriors carry defensive grenades not plasma grenades, otherwise I agree, 1 ppm is fine for a veteran guardsman to carry a bolter. If the question is about how bolters are too big, that is people thinking of astartes pattern bolters, and if the question is about rarity, try to remember that guardsman are supposed to be notorious for scavenging stuff they need, and therefore a veteran would be better equipped than the new guys .

Noc

Good catch. I was probably thinking of a previous codex where they had Plasma Grenades and could upgrade to Defensive Grenades (or could be misremembering the older codex entirely). Also, I agree with the second statement. Its one of the reasons I kinda bawk at rarity being an issue via Lore. GEQs carry Boltguns on many occasions, so them having them isn't actually a lore issue. My honest focus was more on the crunch as opposed to the fluff.

HawaiiMatt wrote:I'm not sure why people think that a 1 point upgrade on a BS3 unit should be a 1 point upgrade on a BS4 unit.
I'd be fine with 2ppm on vets.

Nocturus wrote:Isn't a bolter a 1 point upgrade on the models that have BS4 in the AM codex as well?

I'd tend to agree that the point value is more-or-less covered under something similar to the transitive property of equality. I.E. - You are only changing the firing profile and not the person holding the weapon. A Guardsman with BS 3 firing a Boltgun inherently devalues the Boltgun via lowered accuracy as opposed to the Veteran with BS 4 firing the Boltgun. Since you're already paying for the improved Ballistic Skill, and you're paying for the weapon, does it make sense to pay twice for the weapon?

 DogOfWar wrote:
Considering you can get a Storm Bolter on an Acolyte (granted they're an Elite choice, but still) for 3 points, I think the following option would be reasonable:

Shock Troops (15 pts) - The entire squad replaces any equipped Lasgun with a Boltgun.

That means you're paying the same flat fee for 9 Veterans to have Bolters (with no specials, ~1.5 ppm) or 4 Veterans to have Bolters (with 3 specials and 1 HWT, ~4 ppm).

We have an IG character (Harker) who is hulking around a Relentless Heavy Bolter. I'm pretty sure regular Veterans can tote standard Bolters (even if they are 'human-sized') without too much trouble.

DoW

I think I'd be okay with this as a compromise, but I honestly think it should be a 10 point upgrade. At that point, its 1 PPM (since it should include the Sergeant IMO) if you don't take any Specials or Heavies, but if you DO take Specials and Heavies, it turns into a 2 PPM purchase. The Heavy Weapons team having a Bolter is all but a non-issue since it will rarely be firing it.

 NydusTemplar wrote:


I'd tend to agree that the point value is more-or-less covered under something similar to the transitive property of equality. I.E. - You are only changing the firing profile and not the person holding the weapon. A Guardsman with BS 3 firing a Boltgun inherently devalues the Boltgun via lowered accuracy as opposed to the Veteran with BS 4 firing the Boltgun. Since you're already paying for the improved Ballistic Skill, and you're paying for the weapon, does it make sense to pay twice for the weapon?

Yes. A 2+ FNP should be more expensive on a Carnifex than on a Genestealer, even if the Carnifex has already paid for its additional survivability.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
1 ppm sounds about right. Maybe have a 0-5 restriction per squad to represent the weapon's rarity.

So... minus the sergeant (who can buy one, being a character) and three special weapons troopers, your limitation (assuming you're not taking a heavy weapons team, which might actually make sense if going the anti-infantry route since you're already buying bolters) is 1 vet can't buy a bolter?

 Ashiraya wrote:
Yes. A 2+ FNP should be more expensive on a Carnifex than on a Genestealer, even if the Carnifex has already paid for its additional survivability.

Hyperbole. A Veteran is not to a standard Guardsman what a Carnifex is to a Genestealer.

However, since you brought it up, let's consider the Tyranid Codex. Perhaps not the best example of anything, but it fits the bill for the moment. In that codex, the best analogue is a Carnifex and a Genestealer Broodlord. They can both take options from the 'Biomorphs' section of the wargear list. The closest parallel we have, in this case, is 'Regeneration'. You pay the same amount for both models. The reason? Simple. Regeneration is devalued based on the Broodlord's statline and survivability versus the Carnifex's statline and survivability. There's no need to change the points cost of the ability, since its value is increased or decreased naturally based on who is taking it and how those models are being used.

This is actually game design. Regeneration on a Broodlord can be a poor choice, and good players will recognize this. However, Regeneration can be a better choice on a Carnifex (if it weren't going to be leveled in a single turn by a hail of Krak Missiles ANYWAY) because the Carnifex body supports the ability. I.E. - By having only one cost for the ability, and basing that cost around what the ability does rather than what it can do in conjunction with what buys it, it makes the purchase not a universal one. That allows for decision making and choices rather than 'auto buys'.

Now, there are, and have been, examples of what you're saying. Let's look at the Tau Riptide. FNP on that monster is 35 points, where as its 15 points on everything else. Did that 20 point increase stop people from taking FNP on their Riptide? Did it dissuade them at all? Did the discount make the FNP option on Crisis Suits make it more desirable for them? Honestly, you're probably not bringing FNP on your Crisis Suit Commander, but you ARE taking FNP on your Riptide. The fact that the two prices are different based on who bought them did nothing to encourage or discourage their purchase. There's no choice. You have a Riptide? Unless you're playing a fun list, or have a very specific build in mind that leaves it no room, you're taking FNP. Its an autobuy. You have a Crisis Suit Commander? You aren't taking FNP, because you ARE taking better offensive or defensive upgrades, even at the reduced cost.

Let's go back to Regeneration on the Broodlord versus the Carnifex. Let's say they amend the table, now 'Fexes pay 30 for Regeneration, and Broodlords pay 10. Will you then be taking Regeneration on your Broodlord? Of course. Its an auto buy now (if Genestealer were allowed to have frag grenades). Considering that they've got infiltrate, there's a high chance he's gonna take a wound, and as long as its not Str 10, that wound you just safely took saved a mook Genestealer to make that eventual charge even more painful. Now, you've got a 50% chance of getting that wound back. That's a 10 point upgrade which pays out 14 to 18 points if used right. Get shot twice, save two Genestealers, regenerate one wound, and you've made its points cost and then some. Will you still put Regeneration on 'Fexes & other MCs even though its 20 points more? Sure, but the cost did nothing to affect your decision making. You bought the upgrade because it suits the model's usage and the upgrade was reasonably priced.

An ability's price is and should be determined by what it can do regardless which model its attached to. Regeneration is priced based on the fact that its has a 50% chance, per turn, to return a lost wound. The Wound Characteristic has a price value, and this ability's cost is based on that. It is up to the player to determine if it is/is not a good purchase. If they start shift pricing everything based on what its attached to, it becomes less a choice by the player and more a choice by the designer. If, in the above scenario, they left the price of Regeneration at 30, and upped it for MCs to 50, than no one will take the upgrade since its not reasonably priced. Once again, the designer took the choice away from the player and thus removed decision making from the game. Making decisions IS game play.

Another example would be the Space Marine Captain. They come with, as part of their cost, a 4++. If they want to buy a Storm Shield, its 15 points. Should he, then, pay less for that 3++ since its only a ~16% increase in survivability? No. You're buying him a 3++, and its valued at 15. Its up to you, the player, to decide if that extra ~16% survivability is worth the 15 points. If it was value shifted for the Captain down to 5 points, it'd go from being a choice you make to an autobuy. At that point, every Captain might as well have a Storm Shield, since its only 5 points. There's no decision, and thus, no game play.

So yes, as we see above, IF both a Genestealer and a Carnifex could buy an upgrade giving them a 2+ FNP, it would be the same price. It'd be up to you to determine if that Genestealer should pay the, likely. exorbitant price for the upgrade, or if the Carnifex should. However, since a 2+ FNP would be an auto buy at almost any price for the Carnifex, to include the option would remove choice, and thus game play. It should then not be included. And it isn't.

 NydusTemplar wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
Yes. A 2+ FNP should be more expensive on a Carnifex than on a Genestealer, even if the Carnifex has already paid for its additional survivability.

Hyperbole. A Veteran is not to a standard Guardsman what a Carnifex is to a Genestealer.

The situation is equivalent, if more extreme. Any given weapon, stat or USR is worth more depending on other present weapons, stats or USRs that its effectiveness stacks with.

For a less extreme example, consider the Power Fist. Currently it is the same price on a Guardsmen sergeant and a Space Marine sergeant. Are they both worth the same price?

Your example with the Riptide proves nothing. It only tells us that either the FNP upgrade on the Riptide should be more expensive, it should be disabled altogether, or the Riptide itself should be nerfed.

Another less extreme example would be: Say that you have a special item that grants the model with it WS10. Is this worth equally much on a Tactical Marine and a Space Marine Captain? The Tactical gains 6 WS compared to the Captain's 4, and the Captain has already paid for his other wargear, initiative and attacks.

I wouldn't pay more than 1ppm/10pts per squad.

1ppm is good.

Better price than the idiot 10 points combi-weapons went up to in 6th.

GW are awful about cost points costs, going by the 5 points of a flamer and 10 points for a combi flamer. Boltguns should be 5 ppm.

 Ashiraya wrote:

The situation is equivalent, if more extreme. Any given weapon, stat or USR is worth more depending on other present weapons, stats or USRs that its effectiveness stacks with.

For a less extreme example, consider the Power Fist. Currently it is the same price on a Guardsmen sergeant and a Space Marine sergeant. Are they both worth the same price?

Your example with the Riptide proves nothing. It only tells us that either the FNP upgrade on the Riptide should be more expensive, it should be disabled altogether, or the Riptide itself should be nerfed.

Another less extreme example would be: Say that you have a special item that grants the model with it WS10. Is this worth equally much on a Tactical Marine and a Space Marine Captain? The Tactical gains 6 WS compared to the Captain's 4, and the Captain has already paid for his other wargear, initiative and attacks.

As I said previously. The item/ability is already valued and devalued based on who its attached to by virtue of how that model can use it. Doing it again is unnecessary. Yes, an MEQ with a Fist gets a bit more value than a GEQ with a Fist in many situations. However, the Power Fist has not changed in this instance. It is still doubling the user's strength, its still providing AP 2, and its still reducing Ini to 1. Its effects, which is what its cost is based upon, are unchanged. The cost does not change the view point on taking the Fist, and now that Commissars can bring them into Blobs easier, they'll likely see a little bit more use. Str 6 is still a threat to most man sized and monstrous creatures, and AP 2 is still deadly. Sure, you won't be penetrating AV 12, but most don't bring Fists to take down vehicles anyway. Now, granted, assault is all but dead, but in the event you run afoul of something that can still get stuck in, a Commi-Fist would be a welcome addition to any IG blob. Even at 50 points for the Commi-Fist, its still a reasonable, but not automatic, choice.

Onto your second point, yes, the Riptide should be nerfed. It is worse than the old Carnifex was because it can do the same thing, but from across the table with impunity. Combine with Marklights to erase whatever you like, whenever you like, then jet back behind cover. So it proves precisely the game design concept I argued in the post. Name a competitive Tau list that doesn't bring a Riptide? Why would they ignore a ridiculously difficult to kill Terminator remover? Something that can threaten just about anything on the board and take horrendous amounts of punishment? Its an auto include.

Finally, this theoretical item would and should be the same points cost for both of them. This is pretty much exactly my Storm Shield example. The Captain gains less stats from the item since he's naturally got a higher Weapon Skill, but he's also more likely to make better use of it. However, the Tactical Marine (or Sergeant, really) would gain more from it statwise, but wouldn't be as likely to make very good use of it. In the end, you are paying for Weapon Skill 10, regardless of who is on the receiving end.

Who makes a better use of it? Is it worth the points to purchase? How will you change your tactics to make full use of that item so that you get a return on your investment? That's up to you, the player, to decide, not for the developer to just tell you by hamfisting the pricing so that you'll only ever take one choice. Not that Games Workshop isn't notorious for this.

No one likes it when someone sausage fingers a nerf and turns a 3rd Ed Carnifex into a 5th Edition Carnifex, which removed it as a reasonable choice due to poor points balancing. It WAS an auto include and thus DID need a nerf, but doing too much of one is just as bad as not doing enough. Balance is a tricky thing like that.

Pricing special rules, weapons, and items based on what it does without consideration of who it can be attached to is a very fair way to promote decision making and game play. The developers also do consider who and where these options can be attached to usually. However, by making the pricing model ubiquitous, it saves a great deal of time and energy trying to sort out endless minutiae, which is often unnecessary. K.I.S.S. is probably the best rule in game design for this reason. Keep. It. Simple. You can fill in the last word as you choose. I'll say 'Sonnie' to be polite.

...But equal pricing is entirely illogical. WS10 can potentially be highly useful on a captain, it grants him a 33% melee-damage-taken reduction against almost all infantry and an additional 25% melee-damage-done increase against anything with WS6-9.

The Tactical Marine, with his single I4 S4 attack, is incredibly unlikely to accomplish anything at all with WS10. Not only does being in a squad effectively negate the defensive benefit but the offensive benefit is marginal at best.

Saying both are worth the same price (And thus of equal value to the army) is just absurd.

 Ashiraya wrote:
...But equal pricing is entirely illogical. WS10 can potentially be highly useful on a captain, it grants him a 33% melee-damage-taken reduction against almost all infantry and an additional 25% melee-damage-done increase against anything with WS6-9.

The Tactical Marine, with his single I4 S4 attack, is incredibly unlikely to accomplish anything at all with WS10. Not only does being in a squad effectively negate the defensive benefit but the offensive benefit is marginal at best.

Saying both are worth the same price (And thus of equal value to the army) is just absurd.

Never did I say they are the same value on two different models, but the same price makes perfect sense from a game design standpoint. You are paying the points value for Weapon Skill 10. Not Weapon Skill +4 or Weapon Skill +6. Weapon Skill 10. Its cost is divorced entirely from whichever unit might take it. The same goes for a Storm Shield, which isn't costed at 'Increase Invulnerable Save by 1' or 'Increase Invulnerable Save by 4', its a 3+ Invulnerable save. Its is priced at what a 3++ would be worth without worrying about who makes use of it.

As an aside, you are forgetting that WS 10 won't typically protect the Space Marine Captain, either. It won't protect him anymore than the Tactical Marine. The only way his WS 10 is going to protect him is if he's not in a squad, or in a squad with only 1 other model. If he's not in a squad, he's probably dead from being shot off the table. If he's in a squad, he's probably not in the majority, so as a result, his effective Weapon Skill is the squad's. So unless the entire squad has 10, all that increase to WS is doing, is letting him hit on 3s instead of on 4s. Also, he's already at weapon skill 5, and there's only so many models that beat his WS as it stands. Sure, he gets an extra, let's say, 3 attacks with it, and probably in better gear, but the weapon skill, which you are now paying for to be increased, is only contributing so much. Everything else in the package is paid for separately.

If all the costs are 'value adjusted' to match their 'theoretical utility', than the decision to pay for them or not pay for them is taken away from the player. That's bad. At that point, they might as well just allow no options and force builds onto units, because that's what they'd be doing. If there's no risk to the choice, then there's no choice. If there's nothing to weigh, nothing to consider, its not a choice. Choice makes game play. I cannot possibly explain this more clearly.