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.

Can items be fairly priced a la carte?

By this, it is meant that a single point value can be listed, and any unit that can take that upgrade should pay that amount, as it is exactly what it is worth.

Multiple options may be selected.

I think it can work, but not well.

A tactical sergeant will never get the utility out of a close combat upgrade that a chapter master does, for example.

You can price some of that into the cost of units, but that's only if you expect those units to nearly always take the updgrades. For example, IG vets get way more utility out of special weapons than infantry squads, with higher BS and access to three at a time. But thats' probably baked into the price, and it's highly unlikely that anybody would take vets without special weapons.

The flip side is look at an ability like infiltrate. Scouts and terminators should not pay the same price for something like that. It's just way too good on a deathstar.

GW is reasonably good about it now, aside from a few outliers.

A la carte pricing makes sense on units that are broadly comparable, but it definitely has problems.

The sergeants issue, as Polonius mentions, is a big one. Another is support systems for Tau: an Early Warning Override probably shouldn't be more than 5 points for a Stealth Suit, but that's criminally undercosted for a Riptide or a Stormsurge. (And kinda dubious on Broadsides and Ghostkeels, even). Or the Shield Generator: the price is fine for a Commander, but a rip-off on a Stealth Suit (doubly so because they have cover, but even without, 25 points is a bit much to add a 4++ to a T3/W1/3+ model).

Scatter lasers probably aren't worth 20 points on Falcons, say - at that price I'd take literally any of the other weapons instead (never mind that a starcannon or brightlance is probably a better fit for what a Falcon wants to be shooting at), but they damn well are on bikes, and probably War Walkers too.

Who the devil ever wants to pay 15 points for a plasma pistol, but I daresay it's worth more on a tac squad with plasma gun/grav-cannon that's supposed to be hunting TEQs and MCs than it would be to a Devastator sergeant, say. A power fist might even be worth 25 points to a Chaplain, but why would a Guard Sergeant need to pay that much, when his fist is coming in at WS3/S6, on a model that's less durable than a Space Marine?


So yeah, some things can be priced a la carte and be fair, others cannot. I'd prefer to see more representative pricing, even if it's a bit more to keep track of and makes for odd point values. Most of us have at least a calculator, if not a copy of Battlescribe, in our pockets, after all.

No. No, it doesn't work.

A quick glance at any book in 40k is ample evidence to support that.

A powerfist on a Guard sergeant is not worth the 25pts that a marine pays for (and even then, a Captain with powerfist is worth more than a marine sergeant with powerfist).

Tailor the cost to the unit buying it. This also allows specific tailoring to encourage certain units to be taken as delivery systems for weapons that other units can take, but would otherwise pay more for or in smaller quantities.

Its like anything in life. Effort in equals result out. Take the lazy, easy, no effort route of just slapping a point value on something and assigning it equally among all units will get you a poorly balanced string of units. Spend the effort to play test and balance and you get a string of units that all the correct price for their wargear.

Simple stuff.

For the most part I think that the one price fits all approach is flawed, but there are some things it makes sense for.

Something like a melta bomb will be worth the same no mater who’s carrying it. Only one attack, unwieldily so initiative doesn’t matter. Chapter master or tac sarge, everyone gets the same use, so why not a flat cost?

But things like powerfists have a huge swing in effectiveness.

Well, if we ignore the standard convention of only using 5pts increments for most wargear, even a melta bomb doesn't have a flat theoretical cost for all units either. A fast unit with some cool deployment bonus is significantly more likely to use that melta bomb than some super slow, small unit who's main job is to camp a backfield objective.

In that case, the faster, larger squad would likely run in the 5pts range, while the slow, small unit could comfortably buy them for 2pts without breaking the game.

 Blacksails wrote:
Well, if we ignore the standard convention of only using 5pts increments for most wargear, even a melta bomb doesn't have a flat theoretical cost for all units either. A fast unit with some cool deployment bonus is significantly more likely to use that melta bomb than some super slow, small unit who's main job is to camp a backfield objective.

In that case, the faster, larger squad would likely run in the 5pts range, while the slow, small unit could comfortably buy them for 2pts without breaking the game.

Subtle differences like that I’m willing to include in the rounding error for simplicities sake. But you are correct.

I think the best compromise can be found back in 4th edition. Many items in the armory had two prices, one for models with 2+ wounds, the other for single wound guys. So a power fist was 25/15 points, depending on who was taking it.

I also like the system where tac squads paid less for heavy weapons then dev squads.

 Nevelon wrote:

I think the best compromise can be found back in 4th edition. Many items in the armory had two prices, one for models with 2+ wounds, the other for single wound guys. So a power fist was 25/15 points, depending on who was taking it.

I was just about to bring this up - It's a perfect example of simple way to maintain at least some balance.

No. You can use it to make a game but it won't be great. Like rolling dice to determine point values. You get a system but necessarily a good one.

 Nevelon wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Well, if we ignore the standard convention of only using 5pts increments for most wargear, even a melta bomb doesn't have a flat theoretical cost for all units either. A fast unit with some cool deployment bonus is significantly more likely to use that melta bomb than some super slow, small unit who's main job is to camp a backfield objective.

In that case, the faster, larger squad would likely run in the 5pts range, while the slow, small unit could comfortably buy them for 2pts without breaking the game.

Subtle differences like that I’m willing to include in the rounding error for simplicities sake. But you are correct.

I think the best compromise can be found back in 4th edition. Many items in the armory had two prices, one for models with 2+ wounds, the other for single wound guys. So a power fist was 25/15 points, depending on who was taking it.

I also like the system where tac squads paid less for heavy weapons then dev squads.

You mean the system where people don't take Devastators because it makes them overcosted?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:


I also like the system where tac squads paid less for heavy weapons then dev squads.

You mean the system where people don't take Devastators because it makes them overcosted?

I was thinking more of 5th edition. Where when a tac squad hit 10 men, they got a free MM/HB/ML, and could upgrade to one of the other heavies for 5-10 points. Devs paid full price. Which admittedly was higher then it should have been, and still is.

But a heavy on a tac squad is spending most of the game on the move, so will snap fire more often then not. Plus, they rarely want to be shooting at the same sort of thing that bolters do, due to the different profiles. Whereas in dev squads, you can concentrate similar guns so there is a lot less waste, both in points and tactics.

I just makes me sad to see people suggesting that we leave the heavies off the tac squads, as they tend to be a waste of points. Waste though they be, they are an iconic part of the tactical squad.

It’s the same argument about units paying the right price for wargear. Different units get different use out of the same thing, and should be charged appropriately.

The only accurate way to assign PV in a game like 40k. Is assign comparative values across units, after a reasonable amount of play testing.

As this covers all the synergistic elements within each unit composition.

Re writing the rules to improve tactical depth and reduce pointless complication would help no end with this process.

 Nevelon wrote:
<snip>
I just makes me sad to see people suggesting that we leave the heavies off the tac squads, as they tend to be a waste of points. Waste though they be, they are an iconic part of the tactical squad.

It’s the same argument about units paying the right price for wargear. Different units get different use out of the same thing, and should be charged appropriately.

Apropos of nothing in particular, this is why Salvo 1/1 Multi-Meltas and Salvo 3/3 Heavy Bolters might be interesting.

Probably worthy of a thread all its own.

Off the top:
-Salvo ML seems wrong. Its a heavy weapon. Not even an SM can hipfire it accurately!
-Salvo MM seems like a good idea. Note that its basically a Meltagun on the move (minus Assault). Itd also make a Dev squad +4 MM + Combi MM a better melta drop. This might be a problem, but seems kinda right for a Dev squad to pod in with. They are the heavy weapons unit, much moreso than Sternies should be.
-Shouldnt HB also be on the list? Probably Salvo 2/3?
-Las and Plas are what they should be.
-Grav Cannons should be changed (2/4 @ 24" maybe?), but Grav is really its own topic.
-Autocannons and Assault Cannons should be on the Heavy Weapons list.

But im way off subject.

Grav cannons unfortunately need to be 3/5 because Xenos.

Bharring wrote:
Probably worthy of a thread all its own.

Off the top:
-Salvo ML seems wrong. Its a heavy weapon. Not even an SM can hipfire it accurately!
-Salvo MM seems like a good idea. Note that its basically a Meltagun on the move (minus Assault). Itd also make a Dev squad +4 MM + Combi MM a better melta drop. This might be a problem, but seems kinda right for a Dev squad to pod in with. They are the heavy weapons unit, much moreso than Sternies should be.
-Shouldnt HB also be on the list? Probably Salvo 2/3?
-Las and Plas are what they should be.
-Grav Cannons should be changed (2/4 @ 24" maybe?), but Grav is really its own topic.
-Autocannons and Assault Cannons should be on the Heavy Weapons list.

But im way off subject.

I like one of the options they took in the 30k environment. Some units (veteran tac squad for one) can buy some heavy weapons with suspensor webs. (ML and HB only IIRC) When moving, they can treat it as an assault weapon with half the normal range. So pretty close to a salvo x/x weapon. Makes it more viable to want to include the heavy. But the Dev squad equivelents don’t get the option for the suspensors.

To bring it back to the nature of the thread: When different units get accesses to things in their own way, you can tweak them for that unit. Tac and Dev squads are not getting the same use out of heavies, so shouldn’t be paying the same price. By having everything in the unit entry, you can tweak points or allow other options to help even things out.

From a publishing POV, there is also something to be said for getting rid of the armory and putting everything on one page. GW seems to want to have as much as possible on individual dataslates.

 Nevelon wrote:
I was thinking more of 5th edition. Where when a tac squad hit 10 men, they got a free MM/HB/ML, and could upgrade to one of the other heavies for 5-10 points. Devs paid full price. Which admittedly was higher then it should have been, and still is.

I should point out that Tac Squads did not get them for free, but paid for them in their base unit price if you compared them to other Tactical Squads of the same generation. Devastators are a different story, of course, but you can also carry 4 times the number of Heavy Weapons, too.

But at least Devastators and Tacticals pay the same price for Heavy Weapons now.

But should they? If the Heavy is worth more to the Dev squad than the Tac squad?

Bharring wrote:
But should they? If the Heavy is worth more to the Dev squad than the Tac squad?

Imperial heavy weapons are overcosted for both of them. They could be free for tacs and I still wouldn't take them because I don't even want the temptation of standing still. The only one worth a damn is the grav cannon and it costs 35 pts. I'm not sure if that's a fair price, but the rest of them are all garbage for the points.

Bharring wrote:
But should they? If the Heavy is worth more to the Dev squad than the Tac squad?

If you're suggesting I should pay more for Devastator weapons, all that does is ensure I never use that unit entry.

Bharring, I already never use devastators. I know in your meta, you do, but if I magically teleported to your play group, I STILL wouldn't use them. Bad is bad.

Wow.

I meant perhaps Tacs should pay less, not Devs should pay more.

The price point was besides the point anyways. My question is should they pay the same points for the same weapons. Im not (currently) advocating a specific price point.

Bharring wrote:
Wow.

I meant perhaps Tacs should pay less, not Devs should pay more.

Perception would state that they would be the same thing. If the Tacticals are paying less than Devastators, then Devastators would be perceived as paying more than Tacticals, and so putting them in the same pile before.

As for should they? Yes, since they aren't really getting less out of the gun itself. The real problem with Tacticals and Heavy Weapons tend to be with the general ruleset regarding how a unit selects Targets more then a Tactical Squad's usually mobility needs.

Bharring wrote:
The price point was besides the point anyways. My question is should they pay the same points for the same weapons. Im not (currently) advocating a specific price point.

With Shooting Weapons, unless there is a difference in BS, why shouldn't they? With Melee Weapons, though, we need to consider things like the number of Attacks. A base Sergeant and Crusader Initiate will get the same mileage out a Power Sword, but not nearly as much the Chapter Master will. In addition, the Chapter Master can also take things like Storm Shields which makes it more likely for his Attacks to connect, even if they are Unwieldy.

Well, if a unit needs to be within 12 or 24 inches to shoot melta or plasma guns, a heavy Lascannon isnt worth as much as it would be in a unit that already has 3 heavy Lascannons already, i would think.

Bharring wrote:
Well, if a unit needs to be within 12 or 24 inches to shoot melta or plasma guns, a heavy Lascannon isnt worth as much as it would be in a unit that already has 3 heavy Lascannons already, i would think.

This is a multi-layered problem. I agree that the lascannon is less valuable for the tactical squad. I kind of miss the 5th ed pricing scheme. But even at the current pricing, space marine devs are overcosted.

Martel732 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Well, if a unit needs to be within 12 or 24 inches to shoot melta or plasma guns, a heavy Lascannon isnt worth as much as it would be in a unit that already has 3 heavy Lascannons already, i would think.

This is a multi-layered problem. I agree that the lascannon is less valuable for the tactical squad. I kind of miss the 5th ed pricing scheme. But even at the current pricing, space marine devs are overcosted.

How much is a SM dev anyway?

Bharring wrote:
Well, if a unit needs to be within 12 or 24 inches to shoot melta or plasma guns, a heavy Lascannon isnt worth as much as it would be in a unit that already has 3 heavy Lascannons already, i would think.

Other than more shots, which you are already paying for more anyway, there is nothing actually stronger or weaker for each individual Lascannon in this case, and that is the point.

The only thing that makes a Tactical Lascannon weaker than a Devastator suite of Lascannons is the fact that the Tactical Lascannon is either stuck firing at the same target as the Tactical's Boltguns, the Boltguns firing at the same target as the Lascannon, and/or the Lascannon firing Snap Shot for one of the previous target sets.

If it was up to me, Tacticals should not have a Heavy Weapon, but take a second Specialist Weapon, instead.

And that's not even considering the stupid basic rule that all Weapons in a unit have to fire at a target. Combat Squads Space Marines a little with this, but not everyone who has mixed arms like this has that as an option.

pm713 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Well, if a unit needs to be within 12 or 24 inches to shoot melta or plasma guns, a heavy Lascannon isnt worth as much as it would be in a unit that already has 3 heavy Lascannons already, i would think.

This is a multi-layered problem. I agree that the lascannon is less valuable for the tactical squad. I kind of miss the 5th ed pricing scheme. But even at the current pricing, space marine devs are overcosted.

How much is a SM dev anyway?

34 points for a lascannon guy. Plus the useless sergeant tax.

Martel732 wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Well, if a unit needs to be within 12 or 24 inches to shoot melta or plasma guns, a heavy Lascannon isnt worth as much as it would be in a unit that already has 3 heavy Lascannons already, i would think.

This is a multi-layered problem. I agree that the lascannon is less valuable for the tactical squad. I kind of miss the 5th ed pricing scheme. But even at the current pricing, space marine devs are overcosted.

How much is a SM dev anyway?

34 points for a lascannon guy. Plus the useless sergeant tax.

Eh it could be worse. I'm not saying they're good but it could be worse.

Lascannons should be negative points because they give false hope that something good will happen when I fire them. Instead, I just get MC laughter.