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.

10 Pathfinders with pulse carbines costs 120 points.
10 pathfinders with 7 pulse rifles, 3 rail rifles, a semi-auto grenade launcher, a recon drone, grav drone, or a pulse accelerator drone, and 2 shield/gun drones costs... 120 points. And no, the loss of the pulse carbines doesn't reduce the effectiveness of the pathfinders in their job as an observer unit.

1 Broadside with a heavy rail rifle costs 110 points. It has 2 railgun shots.
1 Broadside with a heavy rail rifle, twin plasma rifle/twin smart missile, weapon support system and 2 shield drones costs 110 points. It has 2 railgun shots, the plasma rifle or SMS shots, ignores any or all hit modifiers to ranged attacks and has +2 wounds.

3 Crisis suits with 1 Burst Cannon each costs a total of 195 points.
3 Crisis suits with 3 burst cannons, Shield gen or weapon support system, and 2 shield drones each costs 195 points. It's only 3x the firepower and a 50% increase in the total wounds (and even more effective wounds in practice if shield generators and saving vs AP-2 or better) of the unit!

1 Hammerhead with Railgun and 2 twin pulse carbines costs 145.
1 Hammerhead with Railgun, 2 accelerator burst cannons or twin SMS (which are better than the pulse carbines in every metric), and 2 seeker missiles costs 145.

So, which of those is the "correct" loadout for the points cost of the unit, where it is supposedly balanced against other equivalently costed units in a similar role and I am not being TFG by taking the piss with all the free wargear that I can take?

Gee, I don't think the system works.

 kodos wrote:
GW could have made a Datacard for each loadout and than make it cost different points

A while back I calculated how many possible different gun combinations there were for crisis suits from just the bits available in the Crisis Suit box, so ignoring giving them CIBs or Frags from the commander kit. There were 35 unique loadouts just from their own box.

If you want to test the maths yourself, you get 3 of each weapon in the kit (plasma rifles, fusion blasters, burst cannons, missile pods, flamers). Each Crisis suit can have 3 weapons in any combination (3 of a kind, 2 same 1 different, all 3 different).

 kodos wrote:
they don't need to make each possible combiantion, but just 3 classic loadouts and it would have been much better than this

Define classic loadout. These units were never like Space Marines where had your bolter boys and a couple specials. They have always, since their very first iteration, been designed around true versatility and customisability. You get the blank crisis suit and put what guns and support systems you want on it. That design space has not changed at all since 3rd edition, nor should it.

Back in 3rd and 4th you had missile pod and plasma rifle or plasma rifle and fusion blaster as the common picks, due to restrictions on taking multiple of the same gun and needing the 3rd hardpoint for a multi-tracker to enable shooting with multiple weapons. But from 6th onwards (Tau didn't get a codex in 5th) it opened up and we started with the triple gun suits, or 2/1 as we no longer needed the hard point to shoot with multiple weapons. So, out of the 7 editions that Tau have existed as an army, they have had the most lax suit equipment rules in 4 of them. Out of their codices, 5 out of 7 have followed that lax equipment restriction.

 AtoMaki wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 kodos wrote:
they don't need to make each possible combiantion, but just 3 classic loadouts and it would have been much better than this

Define classic loadout.

I think it is the Plasma+Missile (Sunknife?), Fusion+Flamer (Sunforge?), Burst+Plasma (Brightwind?), and 2xMissile (Deathwind?). I might remember the names wrong, but IIRC they are sun-sun-wind-wind.

Plasma and Missile was Fireknife.

Those loadouts only existed from 3rd until the Tau codex of 6th removed the restrictions on taking multiple of the same gun, allowed to shoot with multiple guns without needing a support system to do so, and allowed shooting with up to 3 guns.

So, the vast, vast number of Tau players likely never played with those suit loadouts as they were only the go to loadouts due to the restrictions that existed in the 3rd and 4th edition codices.

That hardly will scream "classic" to all those Tau players who joined from 6th edition onwards. The suits that you listed were used for 3 editions (3rd, 4th, 5th), and 2 out of the now 7 Tau codices.

But by all means bring back the weapon restrictions of 4th edition, if you also give me back the armoury options of 4th, and the ability to JSJ on all my jetpack units without needing to use a stratagem.

 kodos wrote:
back in the days Landspeeder hat 3 weapons to chose from in any combination and 1 weapon as add-on

you could run flamer/melta/bolter+flamer/melta/bolter or flamer/melta/bolter+rocket launcher/assault cannon

now we have a Datacard for Bolter/Melter+Melta
one for Bolter+assault cannon or melta+assault cannon or melta+flamer
and one for bolter+rocket launcher or melta+rocket launcher

players are not happy with any option, having only 1 and paying points for weapons not taken, or having multiple cards with fixed loadouts

So, the total number of unique loadouts for those old landspeeders (going from the 5th edition codex as it is what I have to hand) was:

1) Heavy Bolter
2) Heavy Bolter and Missile launcher
3) Heavy Bolter and Heavy Flamer
4) Heavy Bolter and Heavy Bolter
5) Heavy Bolter and Multi-Melta
6) Heavy Bolter and Assault Cannon
7) H. Flamer
8) H. Flamer and Missile Launcher
9) H. Flamer and Multi-Melta
10) H. Flamer and H. Flamer
11) H. Flamer and A. Cannon
11) Multi-Melta
12) Multi-Melta and Missile Launcher
13) Multi-Melta and Multi-Melta
14) Multi-Melta and A. Cannon

14 unique loadouts possible. Not bad, but less than half of the 35 available from, again, just the weapons in the Crisis Suit kit which is ignoring any weapon options not in the kit but available to the unit (CIB and Frag), and other wargear choices such as support systems and shield generators.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

leopard wrote:
the sensible way is to have a unit, and to have upgrades, with point values for that upgrade on that unit, this is where 8th fell over trying to have a fixed cost for a weapon without considering what it it did platform by platform

They had variable weapon costs back in 3rd Edition. Heavy Weapons had a higher cost in a Dev Squad than they did in a Tactical Squad. Didn't make a lot of sense then, still doesn't today.

Yeah, that case didn't make sense as Devs had nothing that actually made the weapons better on that chassis than it was on tacticals. They should cost the same given that.

They had this exact thing in the Tau 9th edition codex. Some weapons were more expensive for the Commanders to take than they were for crisis suit teams. The Commander had better ballistic skill (2+), so got more value out of a one shot fusion blaster than the BS4+ Crisis suit, and so the cost was higher. The trick is getting the balance right between the two.
In a similar vein, flamers cost the exact same on both, as the commander had no advantage using it over crisis suits, as it ignored BS.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

leopard wrote:
the sensible way is to have a unit, and to have upgrades, with point values for that upgrade on that unit, this is where 8th fell over trying to have a fixed cost for a weapon without considering what it it did platform by platform

They had variable weapon costs back in 3rd Edition. Heavy Weapons had a higher cost in a Dev Squad than they did in a Tactical Squad. Didn't make a lot of sense then, still doesn't today.

I'd argue the different point costs made alot of sense at the time, because units couldn't split fire and couldn't move and fire with Heavy weapons. A single Lascannon in a squad primarily equipped for battleline anti-infantry work is not worth as much as in a unit that's going to spend much of the battle being static and concentrated on AT/AMC work. The Devastator squad is going to be firing those Lascannons all game. The Tac squad will maybe shoot it twice, but then be involved in advancing, CC, or maneuvering firefights. And if it did stand still, sure the Lascannon can fire all game but the Bolters will often be wasted, not getting their full potential value.

The points costs worked because of the paradigm they were under.

I disagree. Devastators paid the price of being able to take multiple big guns by being a heavy support slot, taking up one of only 3 you would have access to. You are effectively taking a Tac squad that, for the price of taking one third of your heavy slots, can take 4 heavy weapons in a 5 man squad and loses access to special weapons. The guns didn't need to cost more on top of that.

BrianDavion wrote:

are there any actual armies LIKE that though Karol? given subfactions have largely been swept away? I know that in prior editions salamnders used flamers better, IFs used bolters better etc, but they're all marines using the gladius detachment right now

Maybe not right now but it'll happen. Might be at the first codex or the traditional GW mid-edition design paradigm shift, but it will come.

EDIT: And actually, some of the Space Marine chapters do basically have that in their detachment rules. Black Templars have 2 vows in their possible choices that just make them flat better in melee by adding extra rules to the melee weapons of Adeptus Astartes units (lethal hits or sustained hits).

Blood Angels all get +1 strength and +1 attack on the charge, which is added to all melee weapons that the unit has.

Space Wolf sagas can also add rules like Sustained Hits and Lethal Hits to melee weapons when they are completed.

So, yes. There are rules that make units in some detachments flat out better than identical units in a different detachment, despite both units costing the same points.

ccs wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Why would the Sergeant get cheaper because you chose not to upgrade him?

That's my point, they didn't & don't. You don't get anything "back" by not upgrading (or taking a lesser upgrade). You just didn't pay as much.
Catbarf is claiming that those of us with Sgts etc wielding Bolt Pistols are being disadvantaged by cheaper plasma pistols because ... well somehow.

You are though. Where previously there was a points differential between two units, now there is none.

Look at it from a different frame of reference. Instead of thinking of it as plasma pistols getting cheaper, instead your bolt pistols have all increased to be the same cost as plasma pistols and this cost is hardcoded into the unit and inescapable. Previously model A cost 15 points, bolt pistol was included in that cost and plasma cost 5 extra. Now that model still costs 15 but plasma costs 0, effectively meaning that the cost to upgrade to plasma is built into that 15 points. That's the same as saying the model costs 10 and both the plasma and bolt pistol each cost 5. The model has had an effective price cut before wargear, which is equal to the cost of the most expensive loadout you could put on that model previously. But you cannot take advantage of that cut because the cost of all weapons has been raised to be equal to the cost of what was the most expensive option previously. So unless you are taking that most expensive loadout, the cost of all of your weapons has been increased relative to before.

Lets look at Crisis suits under this framework to calculate the new base cost of a single crisis suit model with no wargear. In 10th crisis suits costs 65 points per model with 3 guns and a shield generator included. Under the 9th edition points (don't have the errata to hand so we'll go by the numbers in the book), the most expensive gun loadout for a Crisis suit was triple CIB. That wargear (3 CIBs and a shield generator) comes to 60 points. Let's subtract that from the cost of a decked out crisis in 10th to work out how many points we're paying for the base profile before we add wargear. So, we have 65-60=5. 5 points is what crisis suits would have cost in 9th before you added the guns for them to cost the same as they do for an identical loadout in 10th. And we didn't even get to drones which are harder to quantify due to the changes but still I think most people would agree that +2 wounds on an already 4 wound model is worth more than 5 points. In 10th edition, Crisis suits are effectively negative points in cost per model before you pay for wargear if you give them 3 CIBs, a shield generator, and 2 shield drones each. Meanwhile, the person who put 1 Burst Cannon, 1 Plasma Rifle, and 1 Flamer without a sheild generator on their crisis suit was paying 15 points total for those weapons on top of the base cost of the model in 9th. They're paying 65 points in 10th. So under the new rules, their crisis suit effectively costs them 50 points per model before wargear.

I think that demonstrates how utterly fethed this approach to points is.

Man, the more you examine this system the more it reveals how utterly, utterly fethed it is in whole new ways. It's like a fractal of bad game design, you look at one part and an infinitude of new bad decisions spirals out, forever.

 catbarf wrote:


I don't feel I should have to explicitly say this, but the issue isn't actually just about SM sergeants with plasma pistols.

This. See my post prior about how some crisis suit loadouts will effectively give you points as the base cost of the model becomes negative once you account for the built in wargear costs if those wargear options are assumed to cost the same as they did in 9th.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 catbarf wrote:


I don't feel I should have to explicitly say this, but the issue isn't actually just about SM sergeants with plasma pistols.

This. See my post prior about how some crisis suit loadouts will effectively give you points as the base cost of the model becomes negative once you account for the built in wargear costs if those wargear options cost the same as they did in 9th.

I think you can reasonably say that a different edition would have different points costs. You can't use 9th costs one-to-one, especially since I don't think anyone took all three of the same weapon on Crisis Suits (mostly because of escalating points costs-which was a fine bit of design).

That being said-the current approach of GW's points is terrible. It's a neat concept to have all heavy weapons equal other heavies, specials equal other specials, so on and so forth... But the execution is awful, and some things are straight upgrades. Sponsons are not equal to not-sponsons, for instance.

I don't see why I can't. The profile of the crisis suit is identical, as is the profile of the weapon short of losing assault (which all crisis weapons did) and the changes to overcharging (EDIT: I also noticed that the base profile did also actually lose a point of AP, so I was wrong here), and the shield generator is also identical.

So, given that we have literally nothing else to base the points on, I think using the previous costs is perfectly acceptable for this demonstration.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 catbarf wrote:


I don't feel I should have to explicitly say this, but the issue isn't actually just about SM sergeants with plasma pistols.

This. See my post prior about how some crisis suit loadouts will effectively give you points as the base cost of the model becomes negative once you account for the built in wargear costs if those wargear options cost the same as they did in 9th.

I think you can reasonably say that a different edition would have different points costs. You can't use 9th costs one-to-one, especially since I don't think anyone took all three of the same weapon on Crisis Suits (mostly because of escalating points costs-which was a fine bit of design).

That being said-the current approach of GW's points is terrible. It's a neat concept to have all heavy weapons equal other heavies, specials equal other specials, so on and so forth... But the execution is awful, and some things are straight upgrades. Sponsons are not equal to not-sponsons, for instance.

I don't see why I can't. The profile of the crisis suit is identical, as is the profile of the weapon short of losing assault (which all crisis weapons did) and the changes to overcharging, and the shield generator is also identical.

So, given that we have literally nothing else to base the points on, I think using the previous costs is perfectly acceptable for this demonstration.

The whole game changed, though.
A 4++, for instance, is very valuable when your base save is 3+ and AP-2 or better is very common. When AP better than -1 is much more rare, it's not worth as much.

Again, I'll stress that I'm with you on "Upgrades should cost points." I just think your example is not perfect.

The shield generator is only 5 points out of the 60. So even if that is free, the base crisis suit is still only 10 points before drones when equipped with 3 CIBs using 9th edition points costs. The costs of 3 CIBs need to have been cut by 20 points total, over one third of what those weapons cost in 9th, before we get the base chassis to the pre-codex-nerf cost of 30 points per model in 10th.

I don't think my points are perfect, due to the changes in 10th, but I think they are close enough to serve as a good demonstration.

ccs wrote:

Oh there is a clean solution. WYSIWYG. You want your non-basic options? Go buy some bitz.

The easier, cleaner solution is that upgrades cost points.

I mean, they could always try asking players why they don't use X weapon before hitting the "Increase the cost of every weapon a unit has to the price of their most expensive and bake that into the cost of the unit regardless of what weapon is actually taken" button.

The problem being that they then decided to go with the system that creates the largest disparity between those who "corrupt" (takes every best in slot upgrade they can now that there is absolutely no reason not to) and those who do not (anyone who doesn't do that).

I think the only unit I've run with my Tau that didn't take upgrades when it could was Pathfinders. Crisis of course did, stealth suits did for some extra punch (fusion blasters) and more battlefield support capabilities (homing beacon etc.), Broadsides did (shield drones, choice of support system).

And that was because Pathfinders existed to do one job in my army and the opponent would always focus on killing them ASAP to shut that down. So investing more points on them for better guns, which also had the side effect of reducing their ability to do the main job they were taken for, was not a sound move.

Now that those better guns are free, and no longer decrease the units effectiveness at being a spotter for other things as markerlights aren't a piece of wargear but just a keyword? Yes, I will have 3 rail rifles, a grenade launcher, 2 gun drones, a recon drone or a grav inhibitor or pulse accelerator in every unit of pathfinders. Pathfinders are now a more lethal infantry unit than the Fire Warrior teams that are meant to be the standard line infantry of the Tau military.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Heres the thing about the crisis suits, depending on what the rest of my army looks like, I could legitimately have need for the capability a unit of crisis suits equipped with 2 flamers and a rocket launcher whereas a unit with 2 rocket launchers and a flamer carries less utility to me given the other selections in my army.

What Tau army are you running where you came to the conclusion that Crisis suits were the best solution for below-average-for-Tau-strength firepower?

How much extra movement will my Hammerhead get for not taking Seeker Missiles?

And does it gain that extra movement after I fire said seeker missiles in the game? After all, it is no longer slowed down by the weight of the missiles any more.

Dudeface wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
How much extra movement will my Hammerhead get for not taking Seeker Missiles?

And does it gain that extra movement after I fire said seeker missiles in the game? After all, it is no longer slowed down by the weight of the missiles any more.

Have them for free, base equipment. You're welcome.

Okay, so does that also apply to my Devilfish, Skyrays, Piranhas and Broadsides? Doesn't altering the base equipment of those units require the same amount of changes as just adding a points cost to the wargear?

What about if I swap the twin pulse carbines on my Devilfish, Skyrays, Hammerheads for Burst Cannons or SMS? Do I get any bonus for not swapping to the superior weapons?

 alextroy wrote:
So I am free to change the WS, Attacks, and Points values of my units since those are not rules?

In a game of monopoly, the rule is that you move a number of spaces equal to the sum of the values rolled on 2 six sided dice.

The results of the dice themselves are not rules as they are not instructions on how to play the game, they are a mechanism used to play the game.

"To make a melee attack, you must roll above or equal to your Weapon Skill value, after accounting for any and all modifiers, on a six sided die" is a rule. The text describing how to identify a units weapon skill is a rule.

3+ is not a rule. 3+ does not tell you how to play a game. 8 is not a rule, nor is 7.

Those are values, which are set by the game designer, that the rules of the game tell you how to use.

If numbers themselves are rules, then tell me, how do I 5?

 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.

Not asking for that. How do you 5? Resolve 5. 5 is a rule, how do you 5?

 alextroy wrote:
Resolve 5 what?

Exactly. A number is not a rule as it tells you nothing with regards to how to play.
Strength is the name of a defined variable in the ruleset. The ruleset tells you when to use that variable and how to use it.

The actual value of that variable tells you none of that. Therefore the value of the variable is not a rule. It is just that, a value.

 alextroy wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Resolve 5 what?

Exactly. A number is not a rule as it tells you nothing with regards to how to play.
Strength is the name of a defined variable in the ruleset. The ruleset tells you when to use that variable and how to use it.

The actual value of that variable tells you none of that. Therefore the value of the variable is not a rule. It is just that, a value.

And your point is?

My point is you cannot play the game without the Datasheets and the Statistics and Abilities they tell you that models and units have. The may not be instructions, but they are still rules.

You also can't play the game without models, are models rules? You cannot play the game without dice or a dice equivalent, are dice rules? You cannot play without a means of measuring physical distance, are rulers rules?

Not everything required to play a game is rules. You need a ball to play football, is a ball a rule? You cannot play 40k without players, are players rules?

GW writing rules and then immediately making those rules pointless as everything ignores them is an iconic duo at this point.

Dudeface wrote:


One of my friends whose an overly critical devils advocate about everything in life type of person actually said "cool I see a buff for the other 2 weapons being made on the datacard then", because they want to believe in the design paradigm and that there's some greater plan going on etc. However nuts you think I am others are worse.

See, I actually think better of them as they are an actual true believer, however deluded that belief is.

You, on the other hand, have heen arguing for this system despite not having that belief.

Andykp wrote:
I kept out of this discussion for nearly 40 pages because joining it is pointless (see what I did there!).

The people who want more granular points systems are entitled to that want. But they also seem incapable of seeing things any other way. Wanting PL and that style seems so alien to them they cannot begin to understand it. There is no point in me trying to explain my position to them. Perhaps the biggest difference is I don’t play war games to win, I dont care who wins or loses. When you can grasp that basic principle, that the game is about the story not a victory, then how much a las pistol costs over a bolt pistol becomes less important.

What story is told by the player with 3 crisis suits each with a single burst cannon being mowed down the player with 3 crisis suits each having 3 burst cannons?

In power level, and in the idiotic points that is 10th edition, both of those units cost the exact same, despite one having literally 3 times the firepower.

Also, GW not caring about what people online think is not a defence of either GW or their approach to game design, but rather a condemnation of it.

And it wasn't always that way, nor does it have to be. I have a print out of the official gw errata/faq for the 6th edition Dark Elf army book, written by Gav Thorpe, which thanks the community at Druchii.net for their input.

Breton wrote:


They're not. The first five with the heavy weapons are 120, the second optional five with the bolters are 80. Unless we're cherry picking the kid who only has 1800 points of minis but wants to play 2,000 and pretend that's a problem with points vs PL and not a problem with Timmy's allowance running out before he got to 2K.

Read out what equipment that the first five devastators come stock with. Not the options, but what they come with to start.

I could equally say that the extra 40 points are to pay for the sergeant. After all, it doesnt matter which of the 9 other marines you switch out bolters for heavy weapons, nothing says you can only do that on the first 4 you buy.

You can prefer something that is objectively worse than something else.

That does not change that the thing you prefer is objectively worse than the alternative.