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 had, in fact, already made the point that free upgrades would all be undercosted under this definition. As would IG hull heavy flamers (a free upgrade from Heavy bolter to heavy flamer!)

Here's the problem: even at 0pts, flamers and missile launchers aren't undercosted, at least not to the extent that BolS is: other options are often better. A 5pt melta is better than a 0pt flamer, but the fact that both are legit options helps to show that neither is horribly undercosted. Likewise, there are two top notch free heavy choices (MM and ML) and one pretty decent 10pt upgrade LC).

Also, BolS is no more 19 pts than a ML is "free." If you want to include the cost of the VSS in Bols, you have to include, at a minimum, the cost of the 10th marine in that of the flamer.

You're also unneccessarily hung up on what Sisters "should" have. That's not the question. Is the benefit conferred by BolS worth 5pts, or is it actually worth more? I say it's worth more. Not a lot more, because making Battle Sisters too much more would just eliminated them as a useful troop choice, even with Acts of Faith. But, regardless of how overcosted and poor Battle Sisters are, being able to, at will, turn on LD 10 Stubborn is a powerful ability. It can help tarpit, It can prevent pinning, it can allow you to charge a threatening unit with a sacrificial squad, etc.

Sisters dont' win combats, but like all short range armies they need to manage it, and BolS allows them to do so.

And sisters aren't the only army without innate morale enchancement. In fact, Marines, Cult Troops, Wraithguard, Orks, Demons, Penal Legion, and have morale enhancers built in. Sisters, IG platoons infantry and command squads, Chaos Marines, and Guardians can upgrade to a morale enhancer. Necrons, Tau, Dark Eldar, Dire Avengers, Rangers, IG veterans, heavy & special weapon teams, conscripts, and Stormtroopers all have no real option to increase morale.

So, I argue this:

Even at their current price, if you want sisters to do much of anything BolS is a great idea, and probably would stay a good idea at 10 or 15pts.

For a unit that was priced properly, the upgrade is a ridiculous steal.

Valkyrie wrote:

Nightwalker wrote:Nemesis Force Weapons from the GK, I mean your giveing every one a force weapon? WTF

¬¬ Read the original post: No Codexes less than a year old

Ooops thought it said more hten a year old i only skimmed

I guess I'll toss out this theory: no matter what the role a unit plays, a 5pt peice of wargear that gives +1 LD and stubborn is probably really good.

Darkjediben wrote:Really? The warscythe? Tell you what, how about you decrease the price of everything else in that codex by ten points, twin link Heavy Destroyer guns, and let me take double Ctan, then you can nerf my warscythes.

Seriously, if Necrons are giving you problems with their warscythes (which are only on Lords and Pariahs, the WORST unit in the entire codex), then the problem lies not with the necron dex, it lies with you.

No its the fact thats it that good, for that cheap.

Yes the lord and pariahs suck, but,the weapon they carry is brilliant. Thats the point im trying to make.

I totally didn't realize how my listing of one piece of wargear would be the catalyst of so much drama.

Anyway, for 11pts each Sisters aren't that bad (point for point, they'll beat marines in a shooting war, lose out in CC point for point, and greater durability against shooting from most weapons point for point spent on the unit than marines), the issues with Sisters aren't with their basic troops, they're rather good actually, it's everything else in the army and the transports, but that's another topic altogether. However 5pts for a squad upgrade that removes all morale penalties is ridiculously cheap for any army, regardless of other issues. Just like Disruption Pods for Tau. It doesn't mean Tau or Sisters are cheesy, just that, for the effect, that price is way too low. It's an auto-take must have piece of wargear due to its cost that isn't really operating in the way it was originally intended (or at least, is operating much more effectively than was originally intended). It's not a judgement on the army as a whole, just that piece of wargear.

I see you finally got my point, polonius. That you cannot take wargear costs and effectiveness by itself in a vacuum. Doin so is worse than worthless.

Polonius wrote:I guess I'll toss out this theory: no matter what the role a unit plays, a 5pt peice of wargear that gives +1 LD and stubborn is probably really good.

It doesn't ive +1 ld.

The BoLS grants unmodified ld checks for the purposes of morale and pinning.

That +1 LD is from the VSS, which is a 14 point upgrade. If you want to count the +1 Ld, then it's 19 points for the BoSL. +1 LD and unmodified leadership checks for nineteen points for a squad of S3, T3 ,and usually I3, WS3, units doesn't seem all that underpriced I would hope.

Vaktathi wrote:However 5pts for a squad upgrade that removes all morale penalties is ridiculously cheap for any army, regardless of other issues.

No it's not. Other armies get things like that basically for free.

Polonius wrote:I'm surprised to see grey hunters on so many lists. In my experience, as kitted out squads they still wilt to any serious combat unit, and while good, aren't worth building an army around.

Except the army that won Adepticon this year was nothing but grey hunters and longfangs.

Grey hunters are the best troop choice in the game right now (rivaled only by some of the units GKs can make troops). And since troops are so important it's a major reason Wolves are so strong, but that's another topic.

Melissia wrote:I see you finally got my point, polonius. That you cannot take wargear costs and effectiveness by itself in a vacuum. Doin so is worse than worthless.

Actually, my point was that you can, and the worth is a matter of entertainment, not wisdom.

Polonius wrote:I guess I'll toss out this theory: no matter what the role a unit plays, a 5pt peice of wargear that gives +1 LD and stubborn is probably really good.

It doesn't ive +1 ld.

The BoLS grants unmodified ld checks for the purposes of morale and pinning.

Ah, my bad. I though it gave LD 10 to the squad as well. It's just basically a stubborn bubble.

That +1 LD is from the VSS, which is a 14 point upgrade. If you want to count the +1 Ld, then it's 19 points for the BoSL. +1 LD and unmodified leadership checks for nineteen points for a squad of S3, T3 ,and usually I3, WS3, units doesn't seem all that underpriced I would hope

Well, you don't take the VSS for the +1 LD. You take it for the faith point. The LD bonus is just gravy.

And you've been misreading everybody if you think anybody thinks that a properly (with book) sisters squad is underpriced. The argument is that sisters themselves are overpriced, and the book is underpriced. Meaning, a better points value for the pair, with the same rules, would be 10pts per girl, +10 for VSS, and 10pts for the Book. That makes the squad cheaper, but also costs things more appropriately.

The point is, an upgrade is undercosted if there's no real reason not to take it. My personal test is to double the cost, and ask if you'd still take it over anything else. In this case, I think most sisters players would gladly pay 10pts for BosL.

Vaktathi wrote:However 5pts for a squad upgrade that removes all morale penalties is ridiculously cheap for any army, regardless of other issues.

No it's not. Other armies get things like that basically for free.

That's simply not the point. Saying that is like arguing that giving gretchin the ability to take power armor for +1pt a model isn't undercosted because other armies get power armor for free.

Troops with stubborn pay for it. Nothing gets stubborn for free. It's either notably included in base cost (penal legion, commissars, Pedro Kantor) and/or comes with an oppotunity cost (Pedro Kantor)

Melissia wrote:No it's not. Other armies get things like that basically for free.

It's generally built into their base cost and unit design, or at least *should* be (we all know GW doesn't always do great playtesting). I'm having a hard time thinking of an army with such abilities that are just automatically 'free' and aren't either built into the cost or require certain conditions to be met (e.g. synapse or Mob rule). At 5pts for the book, it's one of those things that might as well be auto-included every time you buy that unit because it's going to be taken every single time it can be taken and the player will cut other stuff to take it if they have to for a mere 5pts, it's never really going to be a real choice, just like Psybolts on GK Rifleman dreads. If a piece of wargear is an auto-include, it's probably too cheap.

Vaktathi wrote:

Melissia wrote:No it's not. Other armies get things like that basically for free.

It's generally built into their base cost and unit design, or at least *should* be (we all know GW doesn't always do great playtesting). I'm having a hard time thinking of an army with such abilities that are just automatically 'free' and aren't either built into the cost or require certain conditions to be met (e.g. synapse or Mob rule). At 5pts for the book, it's one of those things that might as well be auto-included every time you buy that unit because it's going to be taken every single time it can be taken and the player will cut other stuff to take it if they have to for a mere 5pts, it's never really going to be a real choice, just like Psybolts on GK Rifleman dreads. If a piece of wargear is an auto-include, it's probably too cheap.

I agree with this post.

though sometimes it's not just points cost that's too low, but opportunity cost. Look at Long Fangs: bumping Missile launchers to 15pts isn't going to make them less appealing out of the options. If MLs were 10pts, and Lascannons 20... there would be more competition.

Polonius wrote:That's simply not the point. [snip to save space]

Here, I think, is the crux of the problem then-- my argument, in response to this, is that the BoSL should be standard and included in the base cost. It's already basically that anyway.

But Im not gonna go in depth on that, because it's getting a bit too off topic. My fandex is available where it always is to look at my ideas on the balance for Sisters armies.

Melissia wrote:

Polonius wrote:That's simply not the point. [snip to save space]

Here, I think, is the crux of the problem then-- my argument, in response to this, is that the BoSL should be standard and included in the base cost. It's already basically that anyway.

Which isn't a bad argument, just not really related to the dicussion.

But Im not gonna go in depth on that, because it's getting a bit too off topic. My fandex is available where it always is to look at my ideas on the balance for Sisters armies.

If the last handful of codices are any indication, Sisters are going to change dramatically.

What about Archons with Huskblades ? Initiative 7 that causes instant death with a power weapon and has a 2++. I've seen this guy take out Mephiston and the Archon is about about half his points cost points.

Doesn't the Archon 2++ only last until he fails it the first time?

Polonius wrote:If the last handful of codices are any indication, Sisters are going to change dramatically.

If yer lookin' for drastic change, I don't think you'll be disappointed in this.

moonshine wrote:What about Archons with Huskblades ? Initiative 7 that causes instant death with a power weapon and has a 2++. I've seen this guy take out Mephiston and the Archon is about about half his points cost points.

The low Strength and Toughness counterbalance a lot of that, especially with the fact that it only takes one failed save to make an Archon into a Guardsmen in terms of durability. Like most DE things, very good against very powerful opponents, pants against hordes of weeny oppponents.

If an upgrade is always (or nearly always) taken that costs some number of points more than a basic version, then it is undervalued by definition.

In that situation, the benefits always outweigh the costs. Therefore the cost is too low.

For example, let's look at Vendettas versus Valkyries. Except for their weapons load out, they are the same vehicle. Vendettas are universally taken, Valkyries never are. Therefore the cost difference between Vendettas and Valkyries is too small. Note, this conclusion does not state Vendettas cost too little; it might suggest that Valkyries cost too much. But the conclusion that Vendettas cost too little in comparison to Valkyries is unarguable. This is a valid comparison as they occupy the same FOC in the same codex. Whereas a statement like Vendettas cost too little in comparison to Carnifexes is spurious, at best.

DarknessEternal wrote:If an upgrade is always (or nearly always) taken that costs some number of points more than a basic version, then it is undervalued by definition.

In that situation, the benefits always outweigh the costs. Therefore the cost is too low.

... or the thing is just so necessary that not taking it is suicide.

Just because something is commonly taken doesn't mean it needs to be nerfed. It could just be that it's commonly taken because everything else they have just sucks (see: Exorcist).

Melissia wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:If an upgrade is always (or nearly always) taken that costs some number of points more than a basic version, then it is undervalued by definition.

In that situation, the benefits always outweigh the costs. Therefore the cost is too low.

... or the thing is just so necessary that not taking it is suicide.

Just because something is commonly taken doesn't mean it needs to be nerfed. It could just be that it's commonly taken because everything else they have just sucks (see: Exorcist).

That's called opportunity cost.

Exorcists are mildly undercosted, but there is no real competition for heavy support slots, and to a lesser extent points.

Look at the hammerhead: it's not really overcosted point wise, but the cost of losing broadsides is huge.

Likewise, look at Retributors: dirt cheap and not bad, but they cost you exorcists which is too expensive.

Exactly. The reason that many choices are taken so often is because the other choices that could be taken in their place suck. The better idea is to buff the alternatives so people have variety, rather than to nerf the hell out of anything that's remotely good. Such as giving Retributors a long-ranged anti-tank option, at least 36".

And no, exorcists aren't overcosted. Given that all rhino based vehicles are cheaper now, I'd say they're in line with what they should be.

Vaktathi wrote:

moonshine wrote:What about Archons with Huskblades ? Initiative 7 that causes instant death with a power weapon and has a 2++. I've seen this guy take out Mephiston and the Archon is about about half his points cost points.

The low Strength and Toughness counterbalance a lot of that, especially with the fact that it only takes one failed save to make an Archon into a Guardsmen in terms of durability. Like most DE things, very good against very powerful opponents, pants against hordes of weeny oppponents.

The advantage is he can avoid large hordes. If you stick him in a retinue then he can last a bit longer. He is essentially a character killer, low strength is compensated for the fact one wound kills and strength can be increased with pain tokens. I was also considering a soul soul trap to get him up to stregth six after killing a character, is this a good idea ?

moonshine wrote:
The advantage is he can avoid large hordes. If you stick him in a retinue then he can last a bit longer. He is essentially a character killer, low strength is compensated for the fact one wound kills and strength can be increased with pain tokens. I was also considering a soul soul trap to get him up to stregth six after killing a character, is this a good idea ?

He can get increased strength and whatnot, but needs to have already fought something, survived, and defeated it to do so, making it very situational, in addition to the fact that many armies don't field characters that would make worthwhile targets for the Archon or that couldn't be accomplished better through just raw shooting or weenier CC units.

Thanks folks, there's a lot of great responses here! Clearly some things are causing a fair bit of contention and debate (which is interesting in itself), but I think we're starting to slowly build a consensus with the 'usual suspects'.

Thanks again, and keep em comming!

The plasma pistol is hands down one of the most overcosted turds in the 40k universe. Follow that up with razorback TL Lascannon.

tgf wrote:The plasma pistol is hands down one of the most overcosted turds in the 40k universe. Follow that up with razorback TL Lascannon.

The Plasma Pistol definitely overcosted, but the Razorback TL Lascannon? You haven't seen the popular Space Wolf and Blood Angels armies out there have you? I don't think I've seen a Razroback that wasn't either the TLLC or the LC/PG variant in...over a year.

Melissia wrote:
Just because something is commonly taken doesn't mean it needs to be nerfed. It could just be that it's commonly taken because everything else they have just sucks (see: Exorcist).

Please re-read what I wrote. If something is taken every time compared to some other choice, it is definitely priced too low in comparison to the other choices.

The choice is never between taking something and not taking it; it is always between taking something and taking something else. If you always take the something, then prices are screwed up somewhere.

DarknessEternal wrote:If an upgrade is always (or nearly always) taken that costs some number of points more than a basic version, then it is undervalued by definition.

In that situation, the benefits always outweigh the costs. Therefore the cost is too low.

For example, let's look at Vendettas versus Valkyries. Except for their weapons load out, they are the same vehicle. Vendettas are universally taken, Valkyries never are. Therefore the cost difference between Vendettas and Valkyries is too small. Note, this conclusion does not state Vendettas cost too little; it might suggest that Valkyries cost too much. But the conclusion that Vendettas cost too little in comparison to Valkyries is unarguable. This is a valid comparison as they occupy the same FOC in the same codex. Whereas a statement like Vendettas cost too little in comparison to Carnifexes is spurious, at best.

I agree with most things. Especially as much as you can, you need to compare like things, which makes it easier to identify the over powered/undercosted options in MEQ books because they are so similar.

On the vendetta/valk comparison, it gets complicated. Although they have the same chassis and similar stats their roles are totally different. The role of the vendetta is just needed more right now. It's not that the valk necessarily costs too much for what it kill, or the vendetta too little, it's the role of one is needed more right now than the other. It's hard to tweak points based on comparisons of units with different roles because the balance of anti-tank/infantry, heavy/light vehicles, and massed shots/better shots needed in a good army changes all the time.

I would say role is the thing that needs to be most similar between units you compare, and the vendetta and valk just aren’t the same at all.

*edited for grammar*

The tau disruption pod is soooo broken. 5 points for the single best tank shield/armor/smoke/whatever in the game.

Unfortunately, it's stuck in one of the least effective codices in the game, so........ not too many worries there.

The Deff Rolla. You can take up to 12 strength 10 hits just for being tank shocked. And also because the rules say that if you move out of the way you take no additional damage

DarknessEternal wrote:

Melissia wrote:
Just because something is commonly taken doesn't mean it needs to be nerfed. It could just be that it's commonly taken because everything else they have just sucks (see: Exorcist).

Please re-read what I wrote. If something is taken every time compared to some other choice, it is definitely priced too low in comparison to the other choices.

The choice is never between taking something and not taking it; it is always between taking something and taking something else. If you always take the something, then prices are screwed up somewhere.

The prices have nothing to do with it. It's a matter of effectiveness.

Noone takes retributors because they're ineffective. Even if they were dropped to five points per model, ten with a heavy bolter, noone would STILL take them, because they aren't worth the slot. The same could be said about Repentia over Celestians. Even if Repentia had their points cut in half, they'd still not be taken by most armies because they SUCK.

It says you may not end your move *on top of* models, it does not say "over."