10th, will GW just bite the bullet and eliminate wargear costs? Should they?

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.

**Haighus**

I won't be "gnashing and wailing" if all unit upgrades become free, but I will be disappointed. It is just lazy for a company of GW's size, and PL and open play already exist for quick, casual games.

Not Online!!! wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
They will. They shouldn't.

Upgrades are not all equal, and making them free means you always take the best, and it means that one of your levers of balance (points changes) become even more useless (see the current Tyranid Warriors).

This.
Also with making equipment cost universal in the past pretty much army wide they already provoked problems.
an exemple: A flamer did cost 5 pts, regardless who bought it. a BS 4 Veteran or a BS 2 recruit. Which one profited more from the flamer? obviously the recruit.

The inverse a melta / plasma gun did cost 15 pts, regardless if a Veteran bought it or a guardsmen. There's just one issue, the veteran has an increased capability by an additional 1/6th on the hit roll.

That allready was rather absurd, since it made the weapons on the accurate units either superior (in some cases far considering the meltas of ye olde days) or worse . and whilest a plasmagun at 15 pts for a guardsmen was ok, especially in rapid fire range, a plasma gun vet was a lot better at using it.

Now we have even left that granularity when everythings equal in points, there's no more opportunity cost associated with just taking the best option because why shouldn't i take 4 lascannons and a plasmagun on my havocs instead of Autocannons or ML?

GW doing so is kind of inevitable and the problems that will spark will however also lead to ever more equipment restrictions, like the traitorguardsmen squad becoming preciscly 1 melta, 1 plasma and 1 GL and NOT specialised equipment for a task.

The most frustrating part is the GW design team once understood this much better, but have trended towards dumbing down points since ~5th edition.

For example, in the Imperial Guard 3rd edition (1st) codex, an infantry squad paid just 8pts for a single BS3 plasma gun, but a stormtrooper squad paid 10 points for up to 2 BS4 plasma guns (replacing a better basic gun), veterans paid 15pts for up to three BS4 plasmaguns (accurate and spammable) and company command squads could take up to four BS3 plasmaguns (very spammable). Platoon command squads were a slight outlier, being able to take two weapons at the same price as infantry. Heavy weapons followed the same pattern- more accurate or more spammable units had higher costs for the same weapon (such as a lascannon being 30 pts in an anti-tank squad, 23pts for veterans, and 20pts elsewhere). Flamers were more expensive for veterans still, but I think this is due to the efficiency of multiple flamers despite the lower benefit for more accurate units.

This is not especially complicated to understand, and I should think a company with GW's resources should be able to playtest this adequately, they managed it when much smaller... Having said that, I prefer the slightly more complex method of increasing the cost per weapon for repeats within the same unit (as efficiency increases) rather than simply increasing the base cost and assuming all weapons will be the same as this is optimal.

Perfect balance is unachievable in a system as complicated as 40k, but it can be trended towards.

**Haighus**

Sgt_Smudge wrote:Will they? No idea? Should they? No clue. Would I like if they did? Yes. I want more units to be "pick-up-and-playable" without too much thought over the minutia of their kit. Now, that does also mean I'd like the weapons to have a way that they're brought relatively into line with one another (chainswords getting more attacks to compare to power swords, heavy power weapons such as thunder hammers and powerfists having an increased drawback, or laspistols getting more shots compared to bolt pistols), but yes - I actually do like the idea of units choosing upgrades that are lateral.

vict0988 wrote:
Way easier for everyone to build models that look cool.

Unless you built your Sergeant with a chainsword then you're wrong and stupid for not giving him free bling.
Calling people "wrong and stupid" is a pretty sure fire way for me to lose sympathy for your position.

Chainswords are cool. All my guardsmen sergeants carry laspistol and chainsword, and I play PL. Are you calling me "wrong and stupid"?

jaredb wrote:One step closer to using PL instead of points. I'm all for it.

The thing is, PL already exists and you can already play it. Matched play should also continue to exist for those who want to play that.

**Haighus**

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Haighus wrote:The thing is, PL already exists and you can already play it. Matched play should also continue to exist for those who want to play that.
Actually, you know what, I'm swayed by that. As long as PL exists, I don't really have an opinion on what happens with points. Fair play to you!

As long as we can keep the whole "if you build your models with X you're wrong and stupid" or "PL is stupid and if you like it you shouldn't be playing any more" to a minimum, I'm happy.

However, I do still stand by that many weapon profiles could do with condensing - melee weapons and bolter variants, especially.

I think that is entirely fair. The novelty of 6th edition power weapons wore off pretty sharpish.

**Haighus**

Part of the problem is that GW is not great at applying negative consequences to upgrades to make them not automatically better, and is getting actively worse at it. Indeed, it seems they are going out of their way to allow players to ignore core rules that apply negatives to models. A good example is the increased utility of basically every weapon type over the editions- rapid fire gained the ability to move and shoot at full range. It then gained the ability to shoot and assault in the same turn. Pistols gained the ability to shoot in melee. Assault weapons gained the ability to shoot after advancing. Heavy weapons lost the restriction of being unable to shoot after moving- this last one was a big balance consideration in the past, an upgrade might be powerful, but you would sacrifice mobility for it.

There are loads of examples for this, such as the way everyone overcharges plasma almost all the time, because re-rolls are trivially easy to provide and the damage boost is basically always worth it.

If heavy and special weapons had more meaningful restrictions attached to them, it would be easier to balance them. Obviously not a practical example for 40k, but things like the Necromunda ammo rolls are a good example of what kind of things can be done- advanced support weapons are less reliable than basic guns in that setting.

chaos0xomega 808219 11471168 null. wrote:

oni wrote:

They're forgetting that they made points costs granular for a reason - it's a metric for game balance.

Its cute that people think this, but it honestly is not true, just an extremely pervasive misconstrued belief that has surface-level logic behind it that makes it seem like a reasonable assumption, but which does not actually stand up to deeper scrutiny or statistical analysis.
People with game design pedigrees - You're all understanding, using, and applying points incorrectly (including GWs design team)

I think it would be helpful for the discussion if you explain why points are not a metric for game balance, and maybe explaine what they are, in your opinion/experience. As it stands, this post comes across as pretty condescending (esp. when using the word pedigree) and I don't think that is your intention.

**Haighus**

Irbis wrote:
Haighus wrote:
Part of the problem is that GW is not great at applying negative consequences to upgrades to make them not automatically better, and is getting actively worse at it. Indeed, it seems they are going out of their way to allow players to ignore core rules that apply negatives to models. A good example is the increased utility of basically every weapon type over the editions- rapid fire gained the ability to move and shoot at full range. It then gained the ability to shoot and assault in the same turn. Pistols gained the ability to shoot in melee. Assault weapons gained the ability to shoot after advancing. Heavy weapons lost the restriction of being unable to shoot after moving- this last one was a big balance consideration in the past, an upgrade might be powerful, but you would sacrifice mobility for it

This is the part you have problems with?

No, pistols being able to do a clunky, inconvenient shot in melee (because they lost +1A) or heavies doing snap shots after move is peanuts next to broken gak stat inflation in xeno and chaos armies removing all the balance elements from the game. Tau used to max at 4+ skill, if you wanted more you needed markerlights and characters. Now? 2+ handed out like candy. Orkstodes and demons used to be T3, now it's T5 in half the entries because frak you. Eldar wraith units had very high stats in return for babysitter getting them to do what you wanted - no more, Eldar players whined so that was binned. Cheap chaos demon auxilias used to have 4+ skill to make 3+ of CSM stand out - nope, all 3+ now, hell, 2+ in some cases. Helbrutes and demon weapons were poweful but disobedient on roll of 1 - screw that, chaos must be predictable so that's gone too. Etc, etc, there were hundreds of characterful downsides in the game to balance upsides but not only it's in the past, the upsides that were once so good they needed a check are now being buffed into the stratosphere even though downside is gone

Meanwhile Imperial armies mostly kept the statlines and weapons, no matter how stupid they were - why SM veteran of centuries of warfare, clad in small tank, namely terminator plate, is still S4 T4 when any ork runt in t-shirt or small demon in loincloth now sports better stats? Why gravis statline is a joke next to ton of entries that shouldn't be even close to it? Why SM kept 3+/3+ when say Tau kid fresh out of academy (or DE teens with mom-funded gear on first raid) gets 2+/2+ just for existing? Why bolters are S4 AP- when junk colts bashed from scrap by GSC mooks are not only better than this, but are also better than most legendary, relic bolt pistols millennia old costing relic slots? Because frak you, that's why

No, this is an illustrative example of the overall problem that is easy to see in the core rules, and highlights an issue with the general trend of GW's game design towards less restrictions.

The Eldar wraithguard example is very similar, but specific to a single faction and less generalisable.

The stat stuff is irrelevant- units with better stats have always existed and are entirely possible to balance appropriately with the correct costs (not just points). Costs which GW are increasingly removing.

**Haighus**

Not Online!!! wrote:
Frankly the increased availabilty in slots is also the removal of a cost.
I can't wait for the GSC horde lists with bonus CP to roll over some unsuspecting list with the new ark of omens detachment. Afterall 12 troop slots mean 6 suicide squads and 6 neophyte squads for the tax of one HQ instead of 2 and some cp.

Yes, the expansion of FOCs has also reduced balance by reducing scarcity.

**Haighus**

vict0988 wrote:
Wraithguard being bad while away from a Psyker isn't going to balance them, the only way to achieve balance is with an appropriate pts cost. You can have units with downsides that are bad, fair or strong and units without downsides that are bad, fair or strong.

Haighus wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Frankly the increased availabilty in slots is also the removal of a cost.
I can't wait for the GSC horde lists with bonus CP to roll over some unsuspecting list with the new ark of omens detachment. Afterall 12 troop slots mean 6 suicide squads and 6 neophyte squads for the tax of one HQ instead of 2 and some cp.

Yes, the expansion of FOCs has also reduced balance by reducing scarcity.

If people only take Tactical Squads because of a Detachment tax and never any more than the tax requires then is there really internal balance? If SM paying their Tactical Squad tax to play causes SM to have a 40% win rate against armies with balanced or undercosted Troops choices is the external balance any better than in a world where Space Marines just skip the overcosted Troops and take their more appropriately costed Vindicators and get a 45% win rate? Balance is achieved through pts, everything else is fluff. You lose and gain weight through nutrition, exercise is for performance and aesthetics.

It is more for internal balance than external balance, but yes, it is just a tool in the toolbox. I think a useful one within 40k where the increased killing efficiency of elites and heavy support units tend to be difficult to balance against the (sometimes) better scoring of troops. There also used to be more 0-1 or 0-2 limits to restrict units that could be too powerful en masse.

**Haighus**

Daedalus81 wrote:

Good to know - I haven't taken a deep dive on that book yet. I'm guessing they're using FRFSRF and Born Soldiers to push the MW. I wonder if there's some middle point where a couple meltas would be worth losing the 1MW on average from the strat.

See this post:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/808206.page#11470345

Can reliably put out ~15 mortal wounds plus regular damage if I remember correctly.