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 did like the old fluff distinction with regards to sponsons - sponsons were typically on the slow infantry support russes or on the fire support russes (like exterminators) while maneuver russes tended to omit them.

This meant that armored companies, who depended on tanks for maneuver and for fires, would often have more sponsonless tanks than sponsons, while siege regiments or infantry regiments with tanks in support would often include them.

Now? Eh. You can leave the sponsons off if you want. You could also just "counts as" invisible sponsons, too. WYSIWYG is dead.

I will say the problem is extremely frustrating for Baneblades.

"Rip your models apart (or saw through old, ancient, invaluable resin) or else you're missing out on two twin heavy bolters and two lascannons" is not my exciting idea of fun.

Technically WYSIWYG isn't a thing in 10th, right?

 catbarf wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Technically WYSIWYG isn't a thing in 10th, right?

Frankly, I don't think whether WYSIWYG is a thing or isn't is particularly material to the discussion, because even if you take the approach that every unit is assumed to have all the upgrades regardless of what's actually modeled, the problem is remembering which random model(s) in a squad have the relevant upgrades- and then repeat across your entire army.

True, though I really don't want to cut open forge world Baneblades from 3rd/4th (or armorcast from before that) just to add a pair of sponsons... (Nor am I terribly excited about just taking them on either).

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I wouldn't skip WYSIWYG entirely. Just for vehicle stuff, mostly. The most egregious issues are with Orks, really. There's lots of wagons without deffrollas and trukks without wrecking balls. Those aren't as simple, but I'm personally fine with just agreeing that the ramshackle vehicle has the capability.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:
And now its even weirder with the combat patrol rules, where it expects an exact load-out, even if its something that you'd rarely (or never) use in the main game. That's an utterly baffling turn.

Oh, yea. I looked at the one for TS and it had bp / chainsword on the Tzaangors. Both loadouts are fine, but I definitely prefer blades. I'd hate for the CP to lead someone to build the models a certain way, but most of them seem equivalent so far. They also had the missile rack on a different model from the heavy weapon, which is fine, but that's a competitive optimization thing that I don't think matters in most games.

How would you handle a Baneblade with no sponsons (or one sponson set)?

Currently it is required to take 1 set, and has the option (free) for a second set. The set of sponsons nets you 2 Twin Heavy Bolters and 2 Lascannons, so not taking the sponsons is a significant firepower degrade (and if you say otherwise, I encourage you to put 0 heavy weapons on your devastators, and then take 2 heavy weapons of your next devastator squad also).

Should I just bite the bullet and pay 50-100 pts more than my unit's actual effectiveness? Is WYSIWYG gone? What's the deal?

Daedalus81 wrote:If someone doesn't have all the sponsons then I'm totally OK with counts as.

Maybe the top table guys will be grumpy, but I imagine someone going for mid to upper tables still has sponsons they can put on. It's been quite common to take them on and off as points fluctuate so I can't envision many people lack that capacity.

Daedalus81 wrote:If someone doesn't have all the sponsons then I'm totally OK with counts as.

Maybe the top table guys will be grumpy, but I imagine someone going for mid to upper tables still has sponsons they can put on. It's been quite common to take them on and off as points fluctuate so I can't envision many people lack that capacity.

That's just the thing, though:
1) I do lack the capacity for certain units. Many of mine are the old Forge World Resin ones (including all of my Shadowswords, that don't even have the lascannon turrets because they have the Arkurion-pattern targeters); the ones that aren't were purchased well before the current box, when the Shadowsword and Baneblade boxes were split and they only came with one sponson each.

2) I don't want to:
- Spend more money to buy sponson upgrade sprues from GW or eBay or whatever
- Tear apart my beautifully painted and decaled superheavy tanks, each with a storied history, to slap more sponsons on and then fix the paint.

Why didn't I magnetize, you ask? Because consistency. Stormsword 14 Aggressor has all four sponsons, as the Company Commander for 4th Company, but Stormsword 24 Akilla and Stormsword 34 Honorum have one sponson set each. That's the fact of those tanks. Back in the day, this made them cheaper; a "consolation" prize in some editions, or genuinely the best choice in others. Either way, it was fine that Aggressor was XYZ points more expensive than Akilla or Honorum, and it was okay that they were cheaper, because at the very least if it wasn't the best choice, it at least wasn't the worst, either.

But now? Its' just the worst. Period. No reason whatsoever.

 Eldarsif wrote:
I mean, instead of free upgrades we got free transports and everything. Fun times.

I mean, War Convocation got free upgrades.

Yeah, I mean when running 3 Baneblades, suddenly 5% cost change is a 15% cost change on 1620 points, or 81 points. That's a whole extra Guard squad plus, or even a Commissar with Kurov's Aquila.

But I guess 10 guardsmen or making an enemy stratagem cost 1 CP more, permanently, aren't very significant buffs...

I mean when does it end?

"All guard squads should be 100 points. That extra 40 pts doesn't get you anything significant - maybe a Commissar - so I think this is fine."

Like what?

Furthermore, it may be hard to "prove" that 7pts is correct for a meltagun on a squad vs say 5pts, but it is very EASY to say that 0 pts is totally inappropriate.

One does not have to prove that something is worth exactly X points in order to refute that Y points is wrong. They must only prove that Y points are wrong and I think that is trivial.

"Is a thing better than the other thing? If yes, it costs more than.0 points"

I have never been killed by an army of straw men conducting a rearguard action for the goalposts before...

Yeah, that's the issue. The difference between a Baneblade and a Hellhammer is probably about right at 30pts (540 vs 510) because the Hellhammer has a gun that is about 30pts weaker (str 7, ap -1, damage 2, 4d6 shots, ignores cover).

The difference between a Baneblade with 2 sponsons pairs and 1 sponson pair is 6 twin-linked bolter shots (slightly better than the d6 extra shots Hellhammer cannon) and 2 lascannon shots.

This tells me that a Baneblade with 1 sponson pair has no business costing as much as a Hellhammer, not to mention costing the same as an entire, fully upgraded Baneblade.

Tyel wrote:
My issue with upgrades are whether they are meaningful in game.

Sheild Vanes on Necron Tomb Blades are a clear example where its not. "Would you like to go to a 3+ Sv over a 4+ Sv" - "obvious yes, if its worth the points?"

So most of the time, its going to be either an auto-take, or a never take. Its very hard to have a scenario where both options are justifiable.

Now you could write the rules so there were "Heavy Tomb Blades" with say a 3+/5++ that play completely differently to "Light Tomb Blades" (4+, perhaps even a 5+) without these upgrades. You'd also probably need to tweak the guns, speed, objective scoring etc etc.

But if you aren't going to have that in the rules, its pointless. The option should just be removed. Make Necron Tomb Blades a 3+ Sv unit and move on.

Its arguably the same with the Battlewagon. In "the rules" - do you want a slimmed down no-gun option to be played? Or do you want the Battlewagon to have such and such firepower, and you don't really care how its modelled? If you want meaningfully different units, this can be set up in the rules - or not if you don't.

You might say this sucks and removes agency from the player etc - but ultimately that argument applies to every limitation in the rules.

I think in cases where the core rules actually have complexity and depth it is more possible to have points based updates. What you say here is true for Leman Russ tank sponsons as well (either so cheap as to be "always on" or so expensive it's not worth).

In 4th, though, back when Blasts scattered, Defensive Weapons existed, and Ordnance had certain very specific rules about when it could be fired, you had genuine thought put into it:
1) Heavy Bolter and Heavy Flamer sponsons were Strength 5, making them Defensive Weapons. These were fantastic on a tank that wants to maneuver as they can supplement the main armament while maneuvering at Combat Speed... EXCEPT
2) Firing an Ordnance weapon meant that you couldn't fire any other guns, Defensive or Not, so there's no reason to take them on an Ordnance tank, EXCEPT
3) Ordnance scattered when on the move a full 2d6 inches unmitigated; moving and firing with the secondary guns against certain targets may be more reliable than moving and slinging Ordnance. So you have to decide whether or not the points charged for sponsons was worth this use case (and the firepower increase when the main gun was destroyed). AND
4) Plasma Cannons and Multimeltas were not Defensive Weapons, so you had to seriously consider their use-cases if you planned to use them.

So you ended up in a case where Leman Russ Exterminators were good with Heavy Bolter sponsons because they could shoot on the move with almost all their guns (fitting the fluff about them being slightly lighter and more maneuverable on the battlefield than a regular Russ), while something like the old Fireball Demolisher was pretty much an either-or situation with auto-hitting heavy flamers on the move, or the risky moving Ordnance roll..

Anyways, whether or not an upgrade was worth it was much more complex back when the core rules were deeper than "do I want +1 save, or don't I?"

People miss that the reason anti-tank weapons were expensive (when points were a thing) was because you didn't need anti-infantry weapons as badly since you had basic guns.

Adding a better anti-infantry gun to an army is a difference of degrees.

Adding a better anti-tank gun to an army is a difference in kind.

Simply saying "well, one is anti-tank and the other is anti-infantry, therefore they are balanced and equivalent in cost" misses that tanks and infantry THEMSELVES are not the same cost.

Yes, you could in fact do poorly by shooting an anti-tank weapon at infantry. But that doesn't matter, because you have a million and one other ways to slap infantry. Vaporizing a tank, though, in a single shot is an extremely rare capability, that bypasses the toughness that someone buying a tank has themselves paid for.

The only times you won't get value out of a heavy AT weapon is:

1) you have some kind of spongy, damaged brain and decided to ignore the heavy enemy assets and only shoot it at infantry
2) the enemy hasn't brought any heavy assets

If 1, that's on you.

If 2? You should be dancing for joy. Sure, this one expensive gun is less effective, but you have efficiently suppressed/deterred some of the most powerful capabilities available to his army. Losing value on the AT gun is a small price to pay for your enemy losing access to anything with more than 4 wounds in his book.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breton wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:

Breton wrote:
Lets try this another way: You need to shoot up the unit of 10 genestealers about to take objective #5 from your Eliminators. Would you rather do it with 11 (BLAST) S10 shots, or 4 (BLAST) S20 shots?

Neither, obviously. The 11 S10 shots won't save my Eliminators because they will kill only half the 'stealers and my Eliminators will lose the objective the same way, the 'stealers will just overkill them less. The battle cannon is not exactly impressive against hordes (not as much as the turbo laser is against big stuff), it can just swing hard if you have a good hand, but I'm not exactly a fan of turning my 40k game into a gamble if you know what I mean.

You got me there, both of them are an upgrade over nothing. However Nothing is not an option on the Thunderhawk, Nothing is also even further from saving your Eliminators. I'm guessing from the non-answer though the point about different roles probably meaning Not-Upgrade has been made. At least until the next person goes chasing A1 S20, D6+6 just because the numbers are bigger. Sort Of.

I would rather use the superzap gun on the Swarmlord making the Genestealers themselves better, and then use the huge amount of anti-infantry firepower that every army gets just for existing to shoot the Genestealers themselves. If the Genestealers are the only enemy unit left while I have Eliminators and a Thunderhawk then the fact that the superzap gun is less efficient against them is probably not going to change the outcome of the game.

H.B.M.C. wrote:From the Forge World Marine rules, specifically the Thunderhawk entry:

Thunderhawk Heavy Cannon [Blast]
48" D6+6 3+ S10 Ap-2 D3

Turbo-Laser Destructor [Blast]
96" D3+1 3+ S20 Ap-4 Dd6+6

Upgrades should be paid for.

Breton wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
People miss that the reason anti-tank weapons were expensive (when points were a thing) was because you didn't need anti-infantry weapons as badly since you had basic guns.

Adding a better anti-infantry gun to an army is a difference of degrees.

Adding a better anti-tank gun to an army is a difference in kind.

Simply saying "well, one is anti-tank and the other is anti-infantry, therefore they are balanced and equivalent in cost" misses that tanks and infantry THEMSELVES are not the same cost.

A Vindicator is 205 points. 5 Terminators is about 205 Points. Sounds pretty close to me. Few guns are the optimal gun for both, especially with the plateau around S/T 9 or 10.

Vs Terminators, the T-hawk with Heavy Cannon gets:
11 shots, approximately 7 hits, 6 wounds, and kills 3, earning you a 125 point return into a 205 point terminator squad

Vs Vindicator, the T-hawk with TLD gets:
3 shots, 2 hits, very little chance to save either, 19 damage, earning you a 205 point return.

TLD is a better choice if both weapons fire at their preferred targets.

The opposite:
TLD will kill 1 terminator for a 41 point return

Heavy Cannon will neither kill nor cripple a vindicator (10 shots, 6 hits, 2 wounds, 1 save, 3 damage) for a 0 pt return, effectively. (Damage isn't exactly worth nothing, but you haven't even made him pull out a tech marine for fear yet).

Yes, you could in fact do poorly shooting an anti-tank weapon at infantry. But that doesn't matter, because you have a million and one other ways to slap infantry. Vaporizing a tank, though, in a single shot is an extremely rare capability, that bypasses the toughness that someone buying a tank has themselves paid for.

The only times you won't get value out of a heavy AT weapon is:

1) you have some kind of spongy, damaged brain and decided to ignore the heavy enemy assets and only shoot it at infantry
2) the enemy hasn't brought any heavy assets

If 1, that's on you.

If 2? You should be dancing for joy. Sure, this one expensive gun is less effective, but you have efficiently suppressed/deterred some of the most powerful capabilities available to his army. Losing value on the AT gun is a small price to pay for your enemy losing access to anything with more than 4 wounds in his book.

S10 -2 D3D isn't heavy anti-tank anymore - its aimed at light vehicles and heavy infantry.

Breton wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Correct, that's my point. The AT gun should be the more expensive of the two.

More armies are likely to bring tanks/monsters than heavy infantry; I can't wait for the IG Ogryn spam list....

Why? Because it can kill 1 Terminator, MANZ, Warrior, Carnifex, Jackal, Venom, etc per turn? Its overkill for most things in most armies, optimal for few things - meanwhile the other version is more likely to be in the "optimal" range for far more units. One makes for bigger numbers, the other has more uses. They're tradeoffs. Blowing up a Terminator with 15 extra but discarded wounds doesn't make the gun an upgrade. Having to spend all day shooting that big giant Knight to death doesn't make the other gun an upgrade either. You pick the role you need to fill, and they balance out to a side grade.

Let me reply to you with a quote of something I already said, since you didn't read it:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

The only times you won't get value out of a heavy AT weapon is:

1) you have some kind of spongy, damaged brain and decided to ignore the heavy enemy assets and only shoot it at infantry
2) the enemy hasn't brought any heavy assets

If 1, that's on you.

If 2? You should be dancing for joy. Sure, this one expensive gun is less effective, but you have efficiently suppressed/deterred some of the most powerful capabilities available to his army. Losing value on the AT gun is a small price to pay for your enemy losing access to anything with more than 4 wounds in his book.

Dudeface wrote:

Spoiler:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:From the Forge World Marine rules, specifically the Thunderhawk entry:

Thunderhawk Heavy Cannon [Blast]
48" D6+6 3+ S10 Ap-2 D3

Turbo-Laser Destructor [Blast]
96" D3+1 3+ S20 Ap-4 Dd6+6

Upgrades should be paid for.

Breton wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
People miss that the reason anti-tank weapons were expensive (when points were a thing) was because you didn't need anti-infantry weapons as badly since you had basic guns.

Adding a better anti-infantry gun to an army is a difference of degrees.

Adding a better anti-tank gun to an army is a difference in kind.

Simply saying "well, one is anti-tank and the other is anti-infantry, therefore they are balanced and equivalent in cost" misses that tanks and infantry THEMSELVES are not the same cost.

A Vindicator is 205 points. 5 Terminators is about 205 Points. Sounds pretty close to me. Few guns are the optimal gun for both, especially with the plateau around S/T 9 or 10.

Vs Terminators, the T-hawk with Heavy Cannon gets:
11 shots, approximately 7 hits, 6 wounds, and kills 3, earning you a 125 point return into a 205 point terminator squad

Vs Vindicator, the T-hawk with TLD gets:
3 shots, 2 hits, very little chance to save either, 19 damage, earning you a 205 point return.

TLD is a better choice if both weapons fire at their preferred targets.

The opposite:
TLD will kill 1 terminator for a 41 point return

Heavy Cannon will neither kill nor cripple a vindicator (10 shots, 6 hits, 2 wounds, 1 save, 3 damage) for a 0 pt return, effectively. (Damage isn't exactly worth nothing, but you haven't even made him pull out a tech marine for fear yet).

Yes, you could in fact do poorly shooting an anti-tank weapon at infantry. But that doesn't matter, because you have a million and one other ways to slap infantry. Vaporizing a tank, though, in a single shot is an extremely rare capability, that bypasses the toughness that someone buying a tank has themselves paid for.

The only times you won't get value out of a heavy AT weapon is:

1) you have some kind of spongy, damaged brain and decided to ignore the heavy enemy assets and only shoot it at infantry
2) the enemy hasn't brought any heavy assets

If 1, that's on you.

If 2? You should be dancing for joy. Sure, this one expensive gun is less effective, but you have efficiently suppressed/deterred some of the most powerful capabilities available to his army. Losing value on the AT gun is a small price to pay for your enemy losing access to anything with more than 4 wounds in his book.

S10 -2 D3D isn't heavy anti-tank anymore - its aimed at light vehicles and heavy infantry.

Correct, that's my point. The AT gun should be the more expensive of the two.

More armies are likely to bring tanks/monsters than heavy infantry; I can't wait for the IG Ogryn spam list....

How are you deciding that 3 wounds off a vindicator is worth a total return of 0?

Since GW decided that doing the remaining 8 wounds to it (and actually killing the tank) was worth 0 points, relatively, I extrapolated.

Cheeky answer, I know, but it feels unfair for me to be asked to assess how much 3 wounds on a single vindicator affects the game state (and therefore what they are worth) when the professional game designers of the game can't be troubled to assess anything of the sort...

ccs wrote:
Other than killing time, why are you debating the effectiveness of the Thundrrhawks guns?
Have any of you ever even seen a Thundrrhawk played??

.
It is a case study on free upgrades (the thread topic).

Breton wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Let me reply to you with a quote of something I already said, since you didn't read it:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

The only times you won't get value out of a heavy AT weapon is:

1) you have some kind of spongy, damaged brain and decided to ignore the heavy enemy assets and only shoot it at infantry
2) the enemy hasn't brought any heavy assets

If 1, that's on you.

If 2? You should be dancing for joy. Sure, this one expensive gun is less effective, but you have efficiently suppressed/deterred some of the most powerful capabilities available to his army. Losing value on the AT gun is a small price to pay for your enemy losing access to anything with more than 4 wounds in his book.

I read it. I just don't buy it. ATV's are T5 W8. Storm Speeders are T9 W11, Screamer Killers are T9 W8, Tyrannocytes are T9, W10, Anhilation Barges are T8, W9, Canoptek Spiders are T7 W6, Venoms are T6 W6, DeffKoptas are T6 W4, Mek Gunz are T5 W6, Dragstas are T7 W9, Crisis Suits are T5 W4, Ghostkeel is T8 W12, Broadsides are T6 W8, Sentinels are T7, W7 or T8 W7, Field Ordnance Batteries are T5 W6, Armiger/War Dogs are T10 W 10 and probably at the very top of this sort of bracket. The point is there are a LOT of these Heavy Infantry -> Light Vehicle - Medium Vehicle targets that don't need S14+ D6+X damage weapons aimed at them - and truth be told they're where you want your Krak Missiles, Multi Meltas, Battle Cannon, etc. - that bracket became much more populated this time around.

Yes, and I think if you instantly vaporized most of those units (no more than than 3 models in any, and the ones with 3 get blasted by d3+2 shots or more from the big gun) you would be setting your opponent back pretty significantly.

That Thunderhawk gun (the big one) will kill a squadron of 3 Sentinels far more effectively than the littler gun, for example. Far, far more effectively. To the point where it is probably the better gun for it. (Just to choose one of your examples)

Yeah, no.

The big gun with 4-5 shots, hitting on 3s and wounding on 2s, guaranteeing a kill, only needs 3 to get past to annihilate the entire sentinel squadron.

The little gun with 10-11 shots, hitting on 3s and wounding on 3s, needs 9 shots to get through to guarantee a kill on the whole squadron AND that is ignoring the 5+ save that the sentinels will get.

If I was shooting at Sentinels, I know which of the "equally useful" guns I would want, and your argument falls apart, Breton.

EDIT:
As for the people arguing about "it's irrelevant because it's imbalanced" then...Well, yes, that's the point, innit?

The game could suck, or not suck, based on the skill of the designer. "The game sucks so stop asking the designers to make it better!" Is not the strong argument you think it is.

All things should be able to be balanced, 840 points, 1000 points, or 15 points.

Breton wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, no.

The big gun with 4-5 shots,

How are you getting 5 shots from D3+1 vs less than 5 models?

3 models rounds up to 5, yes? Or does it round down? Blame the newness.

Still would have 3-4 shots I can buff to guarantee destruction than 9-10 that are guaranteed to take several turns.

 Trickstick wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
3 models rounds up to 5, yes? Or does it round down? Blame the newness.

For blast? It doesnt round. You just get +1 shots for every 5 whole models in the target unit.

Roger doger (that's the same thing as rounding down)

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
I disagree. The statistics of a unit are the rules for using that unit in the game. The units BS 3+ is no less a rule than it’s Abilities. If they were not rules, you could play the game without them.

Then answer, how do I 5? A rule instructs you how to play a game. How does 5 do that?

Bear in mind you can write the entire instructions on how to play the game without ever referring to any specific number. You point to the game mechanic or variable, instead. "Compare the Strength characteristic to the Toughness characteristic. If the Strength is the same as the Toughness then X etc." You can understand how to play 40K without ever needing to see an actual number assigned to a units characteristic anywhere in the written rules. That's a bit of a hint that the numbers themselves are not the rules, but just a variable that is used by the player, as instructed to do so by the rules.

Nah man, numbers are rules.

17 may be a prime number and a two-digit number in the tens, but it is also a wargame rule.

Boosykes wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
This is a general reply to the myriad posts. I have lots going on at work and I'm still tool building for analysis on this edition so I don't have enough time to dive in to things directly.

This isn't a battle between whether or not GW will go back. It's a battle to comprehend the changes and effects and whether or not it produces a better game. So far plasma pistols, missing sponsons, and thrifting points have failed to convince me that that system was better at tackling issues and there's potentially significant issues as a result of breaking those boundaries. I'm speaking in general terms and not trying to ignore or dismiss niche issues that sit outside of those terms.

Allowing people to take 8 models to dodge both blast and a half strength value of 3 instead of 4 has material impact on the value of blast weapons and battleshock. Allowing Death Company to be cheaper with chainswords opens up an opportunity for Lemartes to run around with really cheap bodies with plentiful attacks granting both -1D and Lethal Hits for less points than a standard unit might be.

Taking the position that GW should just change everything to comport with each person's sensibilities...isn't sensible or practical. I don't find it to be a useful argument.

Also, I find it way more compelling to take a unit and decide that I'm taking melta over plasma, because my army supports delivering them before they die and the meta has lots of good targets rather than me saying, 'oh, well I guess I'll take melta, because it's cheaper and I might as well fill the rest of my points gap with them'.

I totally hated Power Level. This isn't that.

How is this not powerlevel?

Well, you see, GW did this free-upgrades thing as the sole cost mechanism for army building in Tenth. Since GW can do no wrong, this free upgrades thing must not be wrong. Since PL was wrong, then that cannot be what GW is doing.

Ergo, this free upgrades thing is not PL.

 alextroy wrote:
In theory, GW has balanced the either/or options and included most of the optionals in the cost. You therefore do not get cases of purely better units from the same points cost.

Let's use my favorite example, the Terminator Squad. A Terminator Squad of 5 models is 205 points. For that you get:

1 Terminator Sergeant with Powerweapon and Storm Bolter

1 Terminator with your choice of: Assault Cannon; Heavy Flamer; Storm Bolter and Cyclone Missile

3 Terminators with Storm Bolter

Any of the Terminators (excluding the Terminator Sergeant) can have either a Power Fist or a Chainfist

Every option available in this unit is a lateral move to a piece of equipment that is better against some targets and worst against others. Short of deciding you don't want a heavy weapon Terminator, this unit is roughly equivalent no matter how you outfit it. This means placing the points at 205 is Points not Power Level in disguise.

The problem is that the Terminator Squad seems to be more of an outlier than the process of determining points allows. That is a shame, because I think the game would be the better for not having a long list of upgrade cost that allow for too much cost-benefit analysis on unit composition based on points efficiency.

What happens if you take a Terminator Sergeant with Power Sword and 4 Terminators with Storm Bolters and Power Fists?

Is that unit roughly equivalent?

Is a Leman Russ without sponsons roughly equivalent to one with sponsons?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

What I predict will happen:

Now - total disadvantage for having sponsons
- people attach sponsons
- GW reintroduced some points for sponsons
Then - people angry at the fact they now have them on but can remove them to reduce points

Don't have sponsons on? Get your sprues and add a magnet.
Points get reintroduced? A-ok.

Glued your sponsons on? Just use them as you have for all previous point systems.

I think the only edge case are people with resin models? Or people who toss their sprues ( WHY?! ).

My favorite thing to do with over-a-decade old, bespoke, converted, lovingly painted and preserved models is to drill a hole in the side and slap a magnet in.

I'm sure I will 100% be able to match the paint color and wear and method used in the painting after over a decade. I mean who doesn't meticulously document every step of the painting process they used in their late teens?

I mean they already deflected to the players on the sponson issue:

"It's your fault for being unwilling to add magnets/sponsons/social contract relitigation to every game. GW is faultless."

Last night I played my Slaanesh Daemons. I was 40 points down after the enhancement (960), and on top of that...

My keeper of secrets didn't have an upgrade. There used to be an upgrade called Sinistrous Hand, giving a total of 4. Having modeled her with the hand, GW has inexplicably removed the wargear so the only options are the shield, whip, and knife.

Graciously, my opponent let me run her with a shield as a Proxy (yay social contract)...

..but on top of being 40 pts down because the lack of granularity (there are no 55/40 point Slaanesh Daemon units and the enhancement is 15 pts), It felt like I was basically 75/1000 points down or more, until my.opponent graciously let me proxy my model as something it isn't.

(In B4 "it's not a problem because all your opponents should let you do this"/"it is your fault for not butchering your models to do surgery")

Breton wrote:

About two years ago I had a game, but I felt like I was 200-300 points down because my Intercessors weren't in Gravis Armor, and Heavy Intercessors just released. About 6 years ago I could fit an entire company of 100 marines and company command and more in 2000 points. Now it costs closer to 2500. Does it suck that your options - available or preferred - have changed from that edition to this edition? Yes. Is that the fault of the switch from the old price system to this one? No. Does it happen to pretty much every faction pretty much every edition? Yes. No, I'm not saying its your fault for not changing your model, I'm saying its part of the hobby, happens to everyone, and isn't caused by the pricing switch despite the attempt to conflate the two.

"GW has fethed up in the past, therefore, fethups should be expected. In fact, they should be tolerated! Nay, even encouraged! Shut up and eat your gak sandwich, because it's your fault for being upset about these fethups!

It is this way as it always has been and ever shall be, GW without end, amen."

Breton wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breton wrote:

About two years ago I had a game, but I felt like I was 200-300 points down because my Intercessors weren't in Gravis Armor, and Heavy Intercessors just released. About 6 years ago I could fit an entire company of 100 marines and company command and more in 2000 points. Now it costs closer to 2500. Does it suck that your options - available or preferred - have changed from that edition to this edition? Yes. Is that the fault of the switch from the old price system to this one? No. Does it happen to pretty much every faction pretty much every edition? Yes. No, I'm not saying its your fault for not changing your model, I'm saying its part of the hobby, happens to everyone, and isn't caused by the pricing switch despite the attempt to conflate the two.

"GW has fethed up in the past, therefore, fethups should be expected. In fact, they should be tolerated! Nay, even encouraged! Shut up and eat your gak sandwich, because it's your fault for being upset about these fethups!

It is this way as it always has been and ever shall be, GW without end, amen."

"I make up what I wish other people would have said after they catch me blaming something that existed before the pricing switch on the pricing switch.".

What *did* you say then, other than "this has happened in the past so get over it"?

Breton wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


What *did* you say then, other than "this has happened in the past so get over it"?

Could you actually use the quote feature where I said "get over it"?

And what I said was it didn't happen because the price structure changed. I didn't say it outright, but you could also conclude that I meant yes points costs change between the one of edition and the beginning of the next edition and this isn't a bug.

Points costs isn't what I am talking about though.

It's the outright changing of a model. The Sinistrous Hand used to do something, and now it does not. There is no reason to build your keeper with a Sinistrous Hand. It didn't cost points in the past, either - I think most of the upgrades since the release of the latest Keeper kit have been attempts at GW's PL-style sidegrading and it mostly worked. There was usually one clear best, but you still got something (some rule or another) for the alternatives.

Now? It still is as "free" relative to the others or not. The old rules it used to have simply don't exist anymore.

Go back to 4th edition and make grenades cost points but also make them useful.

Units with improved capabilities due to wargear should pay more than those without.