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.

What justifies AM meltas/plasmas to be cheaper? They're the same profiles, and the points for platforms which they come on are adjusted accordingly.

Hitting on 4s,

So you honestly think a weapon should cost the same for a marine and a guardsman? Wtf.

Its easier to kill the guardsmen.....

The platform (guardsmen vs marine) are costed accordingly, 4 PPM to 13 PPM, to their given statlines.
The special weapons are the same statline.

Why does AM benefit twice, once for paying less PPM for being less durable/less accurate, and then another for the weapon that does the same thing?

Because Guard has to be the best at everything this edition, can't have them paying the same price as everyone else. /s

Honestly I don't know. It makes sense that a bad bs can't benefit from a weapon as much as a better shooter, but why does this only apply to Guard? They seem to be double dipping on all sides (regiments apply to everything, most CP, great statagems, great relics, great psykers & abilities, biggest flexibility on units and tactics and free orders on top of it).

Cruddace wrote the Codex and was one of the Leads on the edition, that is why they are cheaper than they should be on AM than other armies. That said the platform is very different and that is why having a single points cost for weapons is absurd.

how does one accurately points a autocannon that may be on a T3 BS4+ W2 save 5+ heavy weapons team AND still have it accurate for a T6 BS4+ W6 save 3+ Armored Sentinel, while at the same time balancing out the affect of a swap to lascannons on the same unit.And this is two weapons in two units of the same Codex. Honestly I am hoping we see a return in 9th to weapons getting different costs on different platforms.

 G00fySmiley wrote:
Cruddace wrote the Codex and was one of the Leads on the edition, that is why they are cheaper than they should be on AM than other armies. That said the platform is very different and that is why having a single points cost for weapons is absurd.

But wasn't Cruddace's first army DA? Talkabout bandwagoning.

EDIT.

Nevermind.

BS 4+ is probably the best answer. Guardsmen are too inexpensive at 4 ppm, and Tacticals are too expensive at 13 PPM, but a plasma or a melta is not as good on a Guardsman as on a Space Marine.

To those saying its because Guardsmen are less durable than Marines and therefore shouldn't have to pay as much for weapons, wasn't that the entire reasoning behind splitting up points costs the way they did? The stat line and special rules of a unit are priced accordingly within the cost of the base model, then the weapons and wargear are separately priced based on their stat lines and special rules. So a Marine being more durable and more accurate than a Guardsman is reflected in the base cost of the Marine or Guardsman, while the special weapon (let's say a Plasma Gun) is priced according to the stat line of the weapon itself. Doesn't having the weapon be cheaper for Guardsmen because Guardsmen are less durable and less accurate than Marines when Guardsmen is already cheaper pointswise to accommodate for the fact that Guardsmen is less durable and less accurate than Marines defeat the purpose of splitting the points costs in the first place?

 G00fySmiley wrote:
Cruddace wrote the Codex and was one of the Leads on the edition, that is why they are cheaper than they should be on AM than other armies. That said the platform is very different and that is why having a single points cost for weapons is absurd.

Cruddace is also responsible for the previous two trash codices for Guard...so now all of a sudden he's writing good stuff?

Also, Guard don't have a single points cost for all weapons. Melta and Plasma both have two points costs. Do you think every thing else needs the same? Because if you do, then I want two points costs for Plasma Pistols in Marine books, I want two points costs for Boltguns, I want two points costs for every other flipping book out there when there's an option that can be taken on an HQ or a normal option and there is a BS or WS difference.

I also want Guard characters to be given every single option that the basic Guardsman has access to. Because we don't get that otherwise. We can't give our Sergeants or Officers a Lasgun, we can't give them Combi-Weapons, we can't give them anything super special outside of Relics.

how does one accurately points a autocannon that may be on a T3 BS4+ W2 save 5+ heavy weapons team AND still have it accurate for a T6 BS4+ W6 save 3+ Armored Sentinel, while at the same time balancing out the affect of a swap to lascannons on the same unit.And this is two weapons in two units of the same Codex. Honestly I am hoping we see a return in 9th to weapons getting different costs on different platforms.

The points are based on the BS of an item.

The Sentinel being more durable doesn't mean jack when it's still hitting on a 4+.

 GI_Redshirt wrote:
To those saying its because Guardsmen are less durable than Marines and therefore shouldn't have to pay as much for weapons, wasn't that the entire reasoning behind splitting up points costs the way they did? The stat line and special rules of a unit are priced accordingly within the cost of the base model, then the weapons and wargear are separately priced based on their stat lines and special rules. So a Marine being more durable and more accurate than a Guardsman is reflected in the base cost of the Marine or Guardsman, while the special weapon (let's say a Plasma Gun) is priced according to the stat line of the weapon itself. Doesn't having the weapon be cheaper for Guardsmen because Guardsmen are less durable and less accurate than Marines when Guardsmen is already cheaper pointswise to accommodate for the fact that Guardsmen is less durable and less accurate than Marines defeat the purpose of splitting the points costs in the first place?

That fails flat when a unit can have many weapons and that weapon can be used for many different units in the same Codex.

A plasma can be balanced at one point cost for one unit and totally unbalanced for other unit in the same codex, but if you put the cost of that advantage in the body, then maybe the body will be overpriced if you use another different weapon.

Weapons should have different cost, based in the utility of that weapon in the individual unit can is carryng it. So not how it was done before, not how it is now.
A plasma gun should have a different cost for a guardsmen, a veteran, a Tempestus Scion, a Marine, a Sternguard, a Crisis Suit, etc...

 GI_Redshirt wrote:
To those saying its because Guardsmen are less durable than Marines and therefore shouldn't have to pay as much for weapons, wasn't that the entire reasoning behind splitting up points costs the way they did? The stat line and special rules of a unit are priced accordingly within the cost of the base model, then the weapons and wargear are separately priced based on their stat lines and special rules. So a Marine being more durable and more accurate than a Guardsman is reflected in the base cost of the Marine or Guardsman, while the special weapon (let's say a Plasma Gun) is priced according to the stat line of the weapon itself. Doesn't having the weapon be cheaper for Guardsmen because Guardsmen are less durable and less accurate than Marines when Guardsmen is already cheaper pointswise to accommodate for the fact that Guardsmen is less durable and less accurate than Marines defeat the purpose of splitting the points costs in the first place?

No. Because it doesn't take into account the compositions of squads or access to items for the leaders of a squad.

Try to outfit a Guard Command Squad or Scion Command Squad(the closest equivalents to a Sternguard Squad) with all Plasma weapons. You can't legally do it, aside from throwing a pistol onto the Sergeant/Tempestor.

A Sternguard Squad can have everyone rocking a Plasma Gun(the Sergeant has to rock a Combi-Plasma, but since they're not 1 use only anymore...) and benefiting from perks associated with it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:

A plasma gun should have a different cost for a guardsmen, a veteran, a Tempestus Scion, a Marine, a Sternguard, a Crisis Suit, etc...

Crisis Suits aren't part of this conversation. Their Plasma Rifle is different and should be priced differently to begin with.

Ok? Flamers then, that can be used by many armies for many different factions and not all imperials. But please Kanluwen don't drag another thread on one of your personal crusades (In this case sargeants not being able to use lasguns)

 skchsan wrote:
The platform (guardsmen vs marine) are costed accordingly, 4 PPM to 13 PPM, to their given statlines.
The special weapons are the same statline.

Why does AM benefit twice, once for paying less PPM for being less durable/less accurate, and then another for the weapon that does the same thing?

because these things compound each other, they dont exist in isolation.

The guardsmen is 4pts with a lasgun, a plasma gun isnt worth 13pts (more than triple the initial platform cost) on a BS4+ T5 5+sv Ld6 guardsmen, the platform (the guardsmen) isnt able to take advantage of the weapon as well as a Space Marine is. That goes beyond just the platform, but applies to the weapon as well.

We can show this mathematically.

4 guardsmen (16pts) with lasguns at 12" are killing 0.88 Space Marines in a turn, or 0.055 wounds a turn per point

1 Guardsmen with a Plasmagun will kill 0.694 (assuming overcharge) or 0.56 (assuming no overcharge). If we split the difference, that's 0.625 wounds.
If we cost a Plasma gun at 7pts, an 11pt guardsmen is turning out 0.057 wounds a turn per point, almost identical to the lasgun equipped guardsmen. This makes it a balanced, considered choice.

If we cost the PG at 13pts however, like Space Marines, then the Plasma Guardsman, at 17pts, is only doing 0.037 wounds per point per turn, dramatically worse than the lasgun guardsmen, 35% drop in cost effectiveness, youre better off just taking more lasguns, the plasma gun becomes an objectively inferior choice to more dudes.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 GI_Redshirt wrote:
To those saying its because Guardsmen are less durable than Marines and therefore shouldn't have to pay as much for weapons, wasn't that the entire reasoning behind splitting up points costs the way they did? The stat line and special rules of a unit are priced accordingly within the cost of the base model, then the weapons and wargear are separately priced based on their stat lines and special rules. So a Marine being more durable and more accurate than a Guardsman is reflected in the base cost of the Marine or Guardsman, while the special weapon (let's say a Plasma Gun) is priced according to the stat line of the weapon itself. Doesn't having the weapon be cheaper for Guardsmen because Guardsmen are less durable and less accurate than Marines when Guardsmen is already cheaper pointswise to accommodate for the fact that Guardsmen is less durable and less accurate than Marines defeat the purpose of splitting the points costs in the first place?

No. Because it doesn't take into account the compositions of squads or access to items for the leaders of a squad.

Try to outfit a Guard Command Squad or Scion Command Squad(the closest equivalents to a Sternguard Squad) with all Plasma weapons. You can't legally do it, aside from throwing a pistol onto the Sergeant/Tempestor.

A Sternguard Squad can have everyone rocking a Plasma Gun(the Sergeant has to rock a Combi-Plasma, but since they're not 1 use only anymore...) and benefiting from perks associated with it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:

A plasma gun should have a different cost for a guardsmen, a veteran, a Tempestus Scion, a Marine, a Sternguard, a Crisis Suit, etc...

Crisis Suits aren't part of this conversation. Their Plasma Rifle is different and should be priced differently to begin with.

p

Officers are no longer part of a command squad. Plasma only command squads are completely legal current edition. They were such a problem that gw made an errata addressing their quantity.

Lower to hit.

They have lower strengh, worse Armour and less wounds.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:
Cruddace wrote the Codex and was one of the Leads on the edition, that is why they are cheaper than they should be on AM than other armies. That said the platform is very different and that is why having a single points cost for weapons is absurd.

Cruddace is also responsible for the previous two trash codices for Guard...so now all of a sudden he's writing good stuff?

Also, Guard don't have a single points cost for all weapons. Melta and Plasma both have two points costs. Do you think every thing else needs the same? Because if you do, then I want two points costs for Plasma Pistols in Marine books, I want two points costs for Boltguns, I want two points costs for every other flipping book out there when there's an option that can be taken on an HQ or a normal option and there is a BS or WS difference.

I also want Guard characters to be given every single option that the basic Guardsman has access to. Because we don't get that otherwise. We can't give our Sergeants or Officers a Lasgun, we can't give them Combi-Weapons, we can't give them anything super special outside of Relics.

how does one accurately points a autocannon that may be on a T3 BS4+ W2 save 5+ heavy weapons team AND still have it accurate for a T6 BS4+ W6 save 3+ Armored Sentinel, while at the same time balancing out the affect of a swap to lascannons on the same unit.And this is two weapons in two units of the same Codex. Honestly I am hoping we see a return in 9th to weapons getting different costs on different platforms.

The points are based on the BS of an item.

The Sentinel being more durable doesn't mean jack when it's still hitting on a 4+.

Guard did not have a bad codex in 5th, 6th or 7th. I would agree that they were not always in the top tier army but they were usually solidly mid tier. I like the Guard as an army, but this edition their stuff just went too cheap for other armies to compete as a whole. I can have a fun game vs guard with my elder, my space marines have a noticeable power difference but it is not insurmountable, but my Tau and Orks are not even in the same League as guard currently.

I also disagree on the saying the 4+ is all that matters. read the whole thing. if they could ONLY take Autocannons then sure I could say the points could be addressed properly. but add in the other weapons and it is neigh impossible to balance. That was also meant as a criticism to the entire edition not just the imperial guard. how do you balance a bright lance on a weapons platform with a much more durable wraithlord when the wraithlord may also choose to use 3-4 other heavy weapons or forgo any heavy weapons and just go melee with a sword. I think the older unit entry method of assigning a points cost to a model was a better way of doing things.

Guard had no 7E codex, they got a late 6E codex that was pretty bad, it was a slightly rejiggered 5E codex with a ton of units and charactets cut, and attempted to belatedly rebalance their 5E performance....just before 7E, where, while not dead last, struggled to even be mid tier at best, and even for the last big of 6E they weren't particularly good nor even considered solidly mid-tier.

Hmmm, plasma guns and melta guns seem to have two costs in the guard codex, one for BS4+ models and one for BS3+ models that is the same as the cost other BS3+ factions get.

I wonder why Guard have lower costs.

HMMMMMMMM.

Probably the cruddace conspiracy idea, i think that's the most logical theory here.

 G00fySmiley wrote:

Guard did not have a bad codex in 5th, 6th or 7th. I would agree that they were not always in the top tier army but they were usually solidly mid tier. I like the Guard as an army, but this edition their stuff just went too cheap for other armies to compete as a whole. I can have a fun game vs guard with my elder, my space marines have a noticeable power difference but it is not insurmountable, but my Tau and Orks are not even in the same League as guard currently.

This is absolute garbageposting at its finest.

Guard, as mentioned, didn't have a 7th edition Codex. When we finally got something in 7E(the Cadian Detachment) our requirements were patently absurd.
And really? Guard didn't have a "bad codex in 5th or 6th"? Did you try playing anything other than netlisting+allies?

Because yeah, it was pretty bad.

I also disagree on the saying the 4+ is all that matters. read the whole thing. if they could ONLY take Autocannons then sure I could say the points could be addressed properly. but add in the other weapons and it is neigh impossible to balance. That was also meant as a criticism to the entire edition not just the imperial guard. how do you balance a bright lance on a weapons platform with a much more durable wraithlord when the wraithlord may also choose to use 3-4 other heavy weapons or forgo any heavy weapons and just go melee with a sword. I think the older unit entry method of assigning a points cost to a model was a better way of doing things.

"Waaah, I don't like it so it's impossible to balance".

That, quite frankly, is all I'm getting from your posts. You've contributed nothing beyond complaining about Guard--welcome to 8th edition. Guard have their time in the sun right now.

Get a helmet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
Ok? Flamers then, that can be used by many armies for many different factions and not all imperials.

Even this doesn't work since flamers for some armies operate differently than others.

But please Kanluwen don't drag another thread on one of your personal crusades (In this case sargeants not being able to use lasguns)

I made a mention of it. You're not a moderator. You don't get to tell me what I can or cannot discuss.

The point of that mention, since it seems to have escaped your wonderful insight, is to highlight the fact that currently Guard are the only faction where the leader of a squad is unable to be equipped the same as the rest of the squad and thus cannot benefit from the same perks as them.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 argonak wrote:

Officers are no longer part of a command squad. Plasma only command squads are completely legal current edition. They were such a problem that gw made an errata addressing their quantity.

You're correct.

I was initially going to compare them to Veteran and Scion Squads but forgot that Command Squads no longer are 5 mans.

 G00fySmiley wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:
Cruddace wrote the Codex and was one of the Leads on the edition, that is why they are cheaper than they should be on AM than other armies. That said the platform is very different and that is why having a single points cost for weapons is absurd.

Cruddace is also responsible for the previous two trash codices for Guard...so now all of a sudden he's writing good stuff?

Also, Guard don't have a single points cost for all weapons. Melta and Plasma both have two points costs. Do you think every thing else needs the same? Because if you do, then I want two points costs for Plasma Pistols in Marine books, I want two points costs for Boltguns, I want two points costs for every other flipping book out there when there's an option that can be taken on an HQ or a normal option and there is a BS or WS difference.

I also want Guard characters to be given every single option that the basic Guardsman has access to. Because we don't get that otherwise. We can't give our Sergeants or Officers a Lasgun, we can't give them Combi-Weapons, we can't give them anything super special outside of Relics.

how does one accurately points a autocannon that may be on a T3 BS4+ W2 save 5+ heavy weapons team AND still have it accurate for a T6 BS4+ W6 save 3+ Armored Sentinel, while at the same time balancing out the affect of a swap to lascannons on the same unit.And this is two weapons in two units of the same Codex. Honestly I am hoping we see a return in 9th to weapons getting different costs on different platforms.

The points are based on the BS of an item.

The Sentinel being more durable doesn't mean jack when it's still hitting on a 4+.

Guard did not have a bad codex in 5th, 6th or 7th. I would agree that they were not always in the top tier army but they were usually solidly mid tier. I like the Guard as an army, but this edition their stuff just went too cheap for other armies to compete as a whole. I can have a fun game vs guard with my elder, my space marines have a noticeable power difference but it is not insurmountable, but my Tau and Orks are not even in the same League as guard currently.

I also disagree on the saying the 4+ is all that matters. read the whole thing. if they could ONLY take Autocannons then sure I could say the points could be addressed properly. but add in the other weapons and it is neigh impossible to balance. That was also meant as a criticism to the entire edition not just the imperial guard. how do you balance a bright lance on a weapons platform with a much more durable wraithlord when the wraithlord may also choose to use 3-4 other heavy weapons or forgo any heavy weapons and just go melee with a sword. I think the older unit entry method of assigning a points cost to a model was a better way of doing things.

The old 6th codex really wasn't that great - which is actually part of the problem coming into 8th. A lot of the complete garbage got buffed, and but then nobody looked and saw that the core rules on their own gave guard a big nudge. Ie: Conscripts before getting nerfed....3? 4? times - exactly the same as in 6/7th, but due to the fact that every single weapon in the game barring shootas and lasguns no longer ignored their armor, they gained a ton of staying power.

He, I swear remember hearing last edition the question of "why are guard paying the same points for stuff as space marines. The idea is that an individual guardsman hits on a 4+, so the weapon is less valuable on them than on a 3+ model. This can be seen by the fact that within the codex itself, 3+ units pay extra for the guns. Plasma is 7/13, Melta is 12/17 (I still think these values should be swapped).

Would it be better to balance if each individual unit had its own cost for each weapon? Definitely! It would probably mean that Veterans would become useful again as they won't be saddled with Scion's sins. GW is probably not going to do this for a long while though, if at all.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
The platform (guardsmen vs marine) are costed accordingly, 4 PPM to 13 PPM, to their given statlines.
The special weapons are the same statline.

Why does AM benefit twice, once for paying less PPM for being less durable/less accurate, and then another for the weapon that does the same thing?

because these things compound each other, they dont exist in isolation.

The guardsmen is 4pts with a lasgun, a plasma gun isnt worth 13pts (more than triple the initial platform cost) on a BS4+ T5 5+sv Ld6 guardsmen, the platform (the guardsmen) isnt able to take advantage of the weapon as well as a Space Marine is. That goes beyond just the platform, but applies to the weapon as well.

We can show this mathematically.

4 guardsmen (16pts) with lasguns at 12" are killing 0.88 Space Marines in a turn, or 0.055 wounds a turn per point

1 Guardsmen with a Plasmagun will kill 0.694 (assuming overcharge) or 0.56 (assuming no overcharge). If we split the difference, that's 0.625 wounds.
If we cost a Plasma gun at 7pts, an 11pt guardsmen is turning out 0.057 wounds a turn per point, almost identical to the lasgun equipped guardsmen. This makes it a balanced, considered choice.

If we cost the PG at 13pts however, like Space Marines, then the Plasma Guardsman, at 17pts, is only doing 0.037 wounds per point per turn, dramatically worse than the lasgun guardsmen, 35% drop in cost effectiveness, youre better off just taking more lasguns, the plasma gun becomes an objectively inferior choice to more dudes.

That calculation does not make sense. If you have two full guardsmen squads one with all lasguns and one that has plasmagun the squad with Plasma is better. So you get benefit from that plasma upgrade ofc its more expensive but it's up to you if you want to pay for it or not. Allso you cant mix the platform efectivy in to this as it's all ready componsated on the platform cost.

Allso if special weapons have to have different prices on different factions it should be opposite to what it is now. For example if you think real life military elite forces they have larger and better selection of different weaponry than normal infantry. It should be same in 40k. So if anything spacemarines and maybe some elite IG units should definiatly have cheaper special weapons than puny guardsmen. Just think about it why would imperium produce more special weapons (lower cost) for standard line infantry than they do for their elite forces? This does not make any sense. Guns should stay at same cost at least for all the imperium and if there has to be different prices guns should be cheaper for elite forces.

 G00fySmiley wrote:

Guard did not have a bad codex in 5th, 6th or 7th. I would agree that they were not always in the top tier army but they were usually solidly mid tier. I like the Guard as an army, but this edition their stuff just went too cheap for other armies to compete as a whole. I can have a fun game vs guard with my elder, my space marines have a noticeable power difference but it is not insurmountable, but my Tau and Orks are not even in the same League as guard currently.

I also disagree on the saying the 4+ is all that matters. read the whole thing. if they could ONLY take Autocannons then sure I could say the points could be addressed properly. but add in the other weapons and it is neigh impossible to balance. That was also meant as a criticism to the entire edition not just the imperial guard. how do you balance a bright lance on a weapons platform with a much more durable wraithlord when the wraithlord may also choose to use 3-4 other heavy weapons or forgo any heavy weapons and just go melee with a sword. I think the older unit entry method of assigning a points cost to a model was a better way of doing things.

Hmm, look, heres someone who claims Guard where good in the last couple of editions, I wonder.... Yep, yep and yep, Eldar, Marines and Tau. The three most pampered factions of 6th and 7th edition. How did I guess?
Now, if I said what I want to say the mods would permaban me, so in regards to rule no.1 I am going to keep things as civil as possible.

First of all, stop spewing nonsense into the forums. It is clear that you have never played Guard, and you never had the pleasure of playing them in 6th or 7th, if you can call packing half to three quarters of your army away on the first turn pleasure. Guard where weak. Maybe not the weakest, but as someone who actually played them I can tell you that virtually every game was an uphill struggle against things that where just outright better than anything I had. Fighting against Tau, Marines or Eldar was basically an exercise in setting up and putting away. It was humiliating. You dont know what it was like, playing your pampered factions and enjoying being showered with love by GW. So dont youn dare come down with that high-and-mighty "Oh Guard where not bad in 6th and 7th, they had a great codex". Hell, our codex was a nerf to an already weak codex.

Secondly, how is a Powerfist (S x2) as valuable on a Guard Sergeant (WS3 S3 x 2 to 6) as opposed to a Marine sergeant (WS4 S3 x 2 to 8)? Or a Plasma gun (BS4+ vs BS3+)? Even if we ignore the difference in durability the Marine still gets more use out of his gun every time, as opposed to the Guardsman.
So, anyway, what is your proposed fix? Let me guess, we just ramp up the cost of all the Guard stuff so it costs at least twice as much as Marines pay, because Guard armies are so OP. And whilst we are at it lets make Guard infantry cost as much as the Marine equivalents, because Guardsmen are obviously worth at least as much as Marines, right? and those Russes are far too cheap, they should be 300 points each, and Baneblades 800. Yeah, thats balanced, right?
Or we could stop complaining and do what every Marine player told guard players to do over the last few editions and get good.

Thirdly, I have reached the point where I dont care anymore, so what Tau are weaker than Guard right now? Its not like they where better in every way in 6th and 7th right? We had to suck it up then, so you have too now. At least the power difference is a lot closer than it was last edition.

To all the other players whining about the points difference, look at the damn codex. Guard units only pay less for weapons when they are BS4+, all the BS3+ units still pay the exact same prices as the other Imperial BS3+ models do. Stop complaining, stop overblowing things and stop being reactionary.

JorpA wrote:

That calculation does not make sense. If you have two full guardsmen squads one with all lasguns and one that has plasmagun the squad with Plasma is better. So you get benefit from that plasma upgrade ofc its more expensive but it's up to you if you want to pay for it or not. Allso you cant mix the platform efectivy in to this as it's all ready componsated on the platform cost.

Just so you know, you can never have an all lasgun squad. Sergeants can never have them.

The mostly Lasgun Squads however will benefit from FRFSRF...the Plasma Gun squad won't.

 master of ordinance wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:

Guard did not have a bad codex in 5th, 6th or 7th. I would agree that they were not always in the top tier army but they were usually solidly mid tier. I like the Guard as an army, but this edition their stuff just went too cheap for other armies to compete as a whole. I can have a fun game vs guard with my elder, my space marines have a noticeable power difference but it is not insurmountable, but my Tau and Orks are not even in the same League as guard currently.

I also disagree on the saying the 4+ is all that matters. read the whole thing. if they could ONLY take Autocannons then sure I could say the points could be addressed properly. but add in the other weapons and it is neigh impossible to balance. That was also meant as a criticism to the entire edition not just the imperial guard. how do you balance a bright lance on a weapons platform with a much more durable wraithlord when the wraithlord may also choose to use 3-4 other heavy weapons or forgo any heavy weapons and just go melee with a sword. I think the older unit entry method of assigning a points cost to a model was a better way of doing things.

Hmm, look, heres someone who claims Guard where good in the last couple of editions, I wonder.... Yep, yep and yep, Eldar, Marines and Tau. The three most pampered factions of 6th and 7th edition. How did I guess?
Now, if I said what I want to say the mods would permaban me, so in regards to rule no.1 I am going to keep things as civil as possible.

First of all, stop spewing nonsense into the forums. It is clear that you have never played Guard, and you never had the pleasure of playing them in 6th or 7th, if you can call packing half to three quarters of your army away on the first turn pleasure. Guard where weak. Maybe not the weakest, but as someone who actually played them I can tell you that virtually every game was an uphill struggle against things that where just outright better than anything I had. Fighting against Tau, Marines or Eldar was basically an exercise in setting up and putting away. It was humiliating. You dont know what it was like, playing your pampered factions and enjoying being showered with love by GW. So dont youn dare come down with that high-and-mighty "Oh Guard where not bad in 6th and 7th, they had a great codex". Hell, our codex was a nerf to an already weak codex.

Secondly, how is a Powerfist (S x2) as valuable on a Guard Sergeant (WS3 S3 x 2 to 6) as opposed to a Marine sergeant (WS4 S3 x 2 to 8)? Or a Plasma gun (BS4+ vs BS3+)? Even if we ignore the difference in durability the Marine still gets more use out of his gun every time, as opposed to the Guardsman.
So, anyway, what is your proposed fix? Let me guess, we just ramp up the cost of all the Guard stuff so it costs at least twice as much as Marines pay, because Guard armies are so OP. And whilst we are at it lets make Guard infantry cost as much as the Marine equivalents, because Guardsmen are obviously worth at least as much as Marines, right? and those Russes are far too cheap, they should be 300 points each, and Baneblades 800. Yeah, thats balanced, right?
Or we could stop complaining and do what every Marine player told guard players to do over the last few editions and get good.

Thirdly, I have reached the point where I dont care anymore, so what Tau are weaker than Guard right now? Its not like they where better in every way in 6th and 7th right? We had to suck it up then, so you have too now. At least the power difference is a lot closer than it was last edition.

To all the other players whining about the points difference, look at the damn codex. Guard units only pay less for weapons when they are BS4+, all the BS3+ units still pay the exact same prices as the other Imperial BS3+ models do. Stop complaining, stop overblowing things and stop being reactionary.

First off. Calm. Down. Take a breath. We're talking about plastic army men. No reason to get this worked up over plastic army men we use to shout "pew pew" at each other then flip a coin to see who pew pewed the best.

Second. How good or bad an army was in previous editions shouldn't matter. This game isn't balanced based on karma. Imperial Guard don't deserve to be the strongest army in the game simply because they were bad in 6th and 7th. Tau don't deserve to be bottom tier simply because they were good in 6th and 7th. Balance should not be based on past power rankings, but rather on trying to make the game as balanced as possible. If that means buffing Guard and nerfing Tau, great, fantastic, I'm all for it. But only to the point that the two armies are on a relatively equal playing field, not to the point that they switch positions in the power rankings.

Third. It helps a lot to respond to people based on what they say, not what armies they play. Basing a reply off of that is an Ad Hominem and makes you sound like a petulant child.

Fourth. Addressing the points cost of weapons issue. Yes, a single Space Marine will probably get more use out of a Plasma Gun compared to a single Guardsman. But due to the lowered cost of Guardsmen with a Plasma Gun, you can take multiple Guardsmen with Plasma for every Marine with Plasma. I think the points work out that you can get 2 Plasma Guardsmen for every Plasma Marine with points left over? I personally would rather have 2 BS 4+ plasma guns than 1 BS 3+ plasma gun, especially considering they both die to Overcharge the same. That's what people mean when they complain about Guard weapon prices. Yeah, your guys individually are worse with the weapons than other armies. But you can bring so many of them that it doesn't matter cause you get better results simply through weight of numbers.

JorpA wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
The platform (guardsmen vs marine) are costed accordingly, 4 PPM to 13 PPM, to their given statlines.
The special weapons are the same statline.

Why does AM benefit twice, once for paying less PPM for being less durable/less accurate, and then another for the weapon that does the same thing?

because these things compound each other, they dont exist in isolation.

The guardsmen is 4pts with a lasgun, a plasma gun isnt worth 13pts (more than triple the initial platform cost) on a BS4+ T5 5+sv Ld6 guardsmen, the platform (the guardsmen) isnt able to take advantage of the weapon as well as a Space Marine is. That goes beyond just the platform, but applies to the weapon as well.

We can show this mathematically.

4 guardsmen (16pts) with lasguns at 12" are killing 0.88 Space Marines in a turn, or 0.055 wounds a turn per point

1 Guardsmen with a Plasmagun will kill 0.694 (assuming overcharge) or 0.56 (assuming no overcharge). If we split the difference, that's 0.625 wounds.
If we cost a Plasma gun at 7pts, an 11pt guardsmen is turning out 0.057 wounds a turn per point, almost identical to the lasgun equipped guardsmen. This makes it a balanced, considered choice.

If we cost the PG at 13pts however, like Space Marines, then the Plasma Guardsman, at 17pts, is only doing 0.037 wounds per point per turn, dramatically worse than the lasgun guardsmen, 35% drop in cost effectiveness, youre better off just taking more lasguns, the plasma gun becomes an objectively inferior choice to more dudes.

That calculation does not make sense. If you have two full guardsmen squads one with all lasguns and one that has plasmagun the squad with Plasma is better. So you get benefit from that plasma upgrade ofc its more expensive but it's up to you if you want to pay for it or not. Allso you cant mix the platform efectivy in to this as it's all ready componsated on the platform cost.

Allso if special weapons have to have different prices on different factions it should be opposite to what it is now. For example if you think real life military elite forces they have larger and better selection of different weaponry than normal infantry. It should be same in 40k. So if anything spacemarines and maybe some elite IG units should definiatly have cheaper special weapons than puny guardsmen. Just think about it why would imperium produce more special weapons (lower cost) for standard line infantry than they do for their elite forces? This does not make any sense. Guns should stay at same cost at least for all the imperium and if there has to be different prices guns should be cheaper for elite forces.

While I agree in principal and have thought this many times, the issue then comes to a balance point. After all, the elite forces that would get the price breaks on them would be the units that can best use them already. I mean, a good chunk of the reason plasma got a second price point for guard was because Scions + Plasma is really strong. If the prices were say swapped for guard, with 3+ units (the better trained, more elite units) getting the cheaper price, you would simply see more naked lasgun squads as chaff and a ton more Scions and Veterans to abuse the mechanic.

The same would go with Space Marines. You would see very few extra Tactical Squads with a single plasma gun, you would instead just see the strongest unit for any one job getting spammed with the cheaper guns. Though I suppose it could work as a means of balancing the Tac Squad's lackluster performance - an expensive base unit with jack of all trades stats, but cheap upgrades. It would still be better to price things on a per unit basis though, rather than arbitrarily deciding what is and is not elite (and muddling the waters considering there is an elites slot already too).


And MoO, the thread title itself points out ranged weapons, at no point were Power Fists, or even melee weapons in general mentioned.

Kanluwen, you're getting a bit heated and crossing over the Rule #1 line. Keep it calm and reply to the points made. You're being terribly negative and going off the rails a bit.

(There were three mod alerts for you on this thread, all from different posters).

Thank you.

I get what youre saying with the BS being lower, but why does a wargear need to be tailored around the platform? It's not about the effective WPP I'm talking about, but rather, why a weapon that does SAME STRENGTH, SAME AP & SAME DAMAGE can be priced differently just because of the platforms statline? There are numerous weapons available on platforms that clearly "arent worth taking for its price" in the game across all armies. Whats the deal with AM?

Listen, a single plasma in a guardmen unit isnt even game breaking. Whats at hand is the intent on considering weapon pricing based on the platform, but it has been singularly applied to AM, thats all.

Why not for all armies? If not for all armies, why just AM?

If we're putting BS differences on the weapon's cost I don't understand why Space Marines pay extra for BS3.