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.

I'm a new GK player and Terminators pay more points for the exact same weapons (incinerator, psilencer and, psycannon) than Strike Squad members. I haven't seen any rule that says that Termies can move and shoot heavy weapons without a penalty (which would make the weapon more valuable) or any special rule that makes the weapon better in a Termi's hand than a Strike Squad model's hands. It can't be because the Teminators' are tougher to remove. That would be covered under the base cost of the model. So, I have no idea how/why GW justifies the extra cost.

I think the argument is that weapons on a more durable platform are more valuable because they will survive longer. YMMV on that idea, but there it is.

But if that platform doesn't enhance the weapon in any way then the platform prices should be different and the weapon price should be the same for each platform.
In this instance both the platform and the weapon are more expensive than the base models. Terminator 41 pts vs Strike squad 19 pts makes sense. The Terminator should last longer on the field of battle. But the weapon performs identically regardless of which model shoots it so it should be the same price in either model's hands (like the stormbolter).

I thought the point of the new wargear pricing system was to get rid of this sort of bs lol.

B1okHead wrote:
I thought the point of the new wargear pricing system was to get rid of this sort of bs lol.

The new system (different prices for different platforms) takes in account the fact that the same weapon does not work in the same way on the same platform due to differences in the chance to hit, and how easily such platform can be removed. So, if you see different pricing, is because of the new system.
And that's a good thing, generally speaking.
Now, concerning this the specific case, one could argue that the pricing is not correct (for a number of reasons that we can discuss). But the principle is correct and was something more present in older editions, too, compare to 6th-7th.

Actually no, that isn't what this 'system' is supposed to do. Aside from BS variation, this system is supposed to separate out the durability of the platform from the performance of the weapon. If the platform is better, the higer point cost should be there, not on the weapon.

If the GK adjustment are doing something else, that's a problem with whoever made those adjustments.

But if the platform is better then the weapon is better, but it doesn't means that all the weapons are equally better in that platform.

I believe the actual reason is because Strike Squads must give up a melee weapon to use a special weapon while the Terminators can keep and use their melee weapon while using a special weapon.

Yeah, it's not a very good reason but that's the only difference. Also ignore the fact that Grey Knights get free melee weapons.

At the same time imagine if orks and marines had the same B.S. A weapon upgrade would still be more useful on a marine. He has a 3+ and plenty of chance to save against weapons with ap. While an ork would immediately die to any ap. Additionally, the ork has almost no save chance for no ap, weapons. Terminators are armor 2+, have an invuln in case the ap is high enough and 2 wounds in case wounds do go through. So yeah survivability should be factored into weapon costs.

Voss wrote:
Actually no, that isn't what this 'system' is supposed to do. Aside from BS variation, this system is supposed to separate out the durability of the platform from the performance of the weapon. If the platform is better, the higer point cost should be there, not on the weapon.

If the GK adjustment are doing something else, that's a problem with whoever made those adjustments.

This is what they are doing. GK termies have been specifically called out - not accidentally.

Either they didn't like that they could take both a melee and a special on terminators or they wanted to throw Strike Squads a bone and make the weapons cheaper.

Since the incinerator is certainly worth more than a 17 point heavy flamer and the psycannon a bit less than 2 autocannons i'm inclined to go with the latter.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
But if that platform doesn't enhance the weapon in any way then the platform prices should be different and the weapon price should be the same for each platform.

The platforms would have to be identical for this to be true. Arguably it would be more fair to spread the costs of a unit across both the platform and the weapon to reflect this than just dumping it all on the platform and making everyone pay the same for the weapons. Terminators, for example, get to teleport, which makes short range and rapid fire weapons more immediately valuable as they can appear within short range as they are set up. IMO weapons should be priced according to Ballistic Skill as well, something this edition doesn't do much, and it leads to problems like the Tau bringing only Commanders in crisis suits.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
But if that platform doesn't enhance the weapon in any way then the platform prices should be different and the weapon price should be the same for each platform.
In this instance both the platform and the weapon are more expensive than the base models. Terminator 41 pts vs Strike squad 19 pts makes sense. The Terminator should last longer on the field of battle. But the weapon performs identically regardless of which model shoots it so it should be the same price in either model's hands (like the stormbolter).

No.
A: lasting longer does enhance the weapon. You get more use out of it and your opponent need to spend more firepower to negate the threat it poses.
B: Different weapons don't gain the same level of benefit from each platform.
E.g: something though but slow would make a powerful long range weapon much better, but a powerful melee weapon only a little better, by comparison.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I'm a new GK player and Terminators pay more points for the exact same weapons (incinerator, psilencer and, psycannon) than Strike Squad members. I haven't seen any rule that says that Termies can move and shoot heavy weapons without a penalty (which would make the weapon more valuable) or any special rule that makes the weapon better in a Termi's hand than a Strike Squad model's hands. It can't be because the Teminators' are tougher to remove. That would be covered under the base cost of the model. So, I have no idea how/why GW justifies the extra cost.

So is there a question hidden in there somewhere, or did you just need to get that off your shoulders?

Your army is the spawn of he who must not be named and so must suffer as chaos did after 3.5

It'll end in a decade or so.

Audustum wrote:
I believe the actual reason is because Strike Squads must give up a melee weapon to use a special weapon while the Terminators can keep and use their melee weapon while using a special weapon.

Yeah, it's not a very good reason but that's the only difference. Also ignore the fact that Grey Knights get free melee weapons.

Yup this is likely the reason, they really should have just given a points cost to the force weapons and reduced the cost of the bodies. Instead they seem to have adjusted the heavy weapon costs to reflect the value of the "free" force weapon. Which appears to be valued at about 6 points. SO they really should have made a strike squad member and a terminator 6 points cheaper, then costed the guns the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The more durable platform really does not hold water as they have not really costed individual weapons that way, a lascannon costs the same on a predator as it does on a marine, a storm bolter is the same on a terminator and a strike marine.

Melee weapons don't change cost on platforms that are more durable, or have more attacks.

Perhaps they should take these things into account but it is clear they do not.

pismakron wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I'm a new GK player and Terminators pay more points for the exact same weapons (incinerator, psilencer and, psycannon) than Strike Squad members. I haven't seen any rule that says that Termies can move and shoot heavy weapons without a penalty (which would make the weapon more valuable) or any special rule that makes the weapon better in a Termi's hand than a Strike Squad model's hands. It can't be because the Teminators' are tougher to remove. That would be covered under the base cost of the model. So, I have no idea how/why GW justifies the extra cost.

So is there a question hidden in there somewhere, or did you just need to get that off your shoulders?

I have/had a legitimate question for the discussion forum. If you don't wish to participate feel free to ignore the thread rather than showing your way to an ignore status. I have never understood the need for people to comment just for the sake of seeing their own name. If you don't feel a thread is worth answering then don't. Why clutter a discussion with worthless posts that add nothing to the discussion.

It's because they don't give up the force weapon.

John Prins wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
But if that platform doesn't enhance the weapon in any way then the platform prices should be different and the weapon price should be the same for each platform.

The platforms would have to be identical for this to be true. Arguably it would be more fair to spread the costs of a unit across both the platform and the weapon to reflect this than just dumping it all on the platform and making everyone pay the same for the weapons. Terminators, for example, get to teleport, which makes short range and rapid fire weapons more immediately valuable as they can appear within short range as they are set up. IMO weapons should be priced according to Ballistic Skill as well, something this edition doesn't do much, and it leads to problems like the Tau bringing only Commanders in crisis suits.

This is something the FAD wargame did that I liked. Troop Quality (Rabble, Conscript, Regular, Veteran, Elite) had a base point cost, and almost everything multiplied on that. Assault rifles were like 2x, so a 1 point Rabble with just an Assault Rifle was worth 2 points, while the Elite with the exact same was worth 10 points.

M.