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.

In the space marines codex, heavy bolters are S5, AP 4, range 36. They get three shots and are a heavy weapon. They cost 10 points as an upgrade.

Scatter lasers are S6, range 36, get 4 shots and are a heavy weapon. They also only cost 10 points.

Scatter lasers = heavy bolters? Really?

Can someone explain this to me?

Now compare the available platforms they come on and how many you can take on said platform.

AP4? I dunno. I mean, heavy bolters are kinda stuck on friggin' everything, I don't think there's a "generic" cost for them.

 Maelstrom808 wrote:
Now compare the available platforms they come on and how many you can take on said platform.

I'm not really sure why this is relevent. By putting the points cost of both at 10, GW is basically saying that they are equivalent. That doesn't seem particularly reasonable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:
AP4? I dunno. I mean, heavy bolters are kinda stuck on friggin' everything, I don't think there's a "generic" cost for them.

They're given a generic cost on p. 159 of the SM codex. This generic cost if further confirmed on, e.g., p. 176 of the SM codex: 2 heavy bolters on a Predator = 20 points upgrade.

Yep, in a recent thread I compared SM Devs with HBs to EJBs with Scatter Lasers.

Dev for 24points is not relentless and has 3 BS4 S5 AP4 Shots at 36"
Scatterbike for 27pts is relentless and has 4 BS4 S6 AP- Shots at 36"

The Scatterbike is vastly superior, and easily fielded, and Troops, etc.

It one of the reasons we can argue the Scatterlaser should either cost 15pts as an Upgrade, or should only be S5.

 Zagman wrote:
Yep, in a recent thread I compared SM Devs with HBs to EJBs with Scatter Lasers.

Dev for 24points is not relentless and has 3 BS4 S5 AP4 Shots at 36"
Scatterbike for 27pts is relentless and has 4 BS4 S6 AP- Shots at 36"

The Scatterbike is vastly superior, and easily fielded, and Troops, etc.

It one of the reasons we can argue the Scatterlaser should either cost 15pts as an Upgrade, or should only be S5.

15 pts is too cheap for the utility of the thing. I say 20, because that's what assault cannons cost, even though they are inferior.

Scatter Lasers aren't twin-linked and you can give Heavy Bolters the ability to re-roll ones when shooting with Imperial Fists which forges the narrative!

(Games Workshop, 2015)

I think also the Scatter Laser can be on platforms that can move and shoot (usually moving at least 7 and up to 12 or more") and use run shoot run methods etc.

The gun and the thingies carrying the gun are scary.

How it directly compares? Not sure, I think against vehicles the scatter laser wins, against monsters scatter wins but against basic troops like Tau or Guard in the open the heavy bolter could come out better.

Traditio wrote:

 Maelstrom808 wrote:
Now compare the available platforms they come on and how many you can take on said platform.

I'm not really sure why this is relevent. By putting the points cost of both at 10, GW is basically saying that they are equivalent. That doesn't seem particularly reasonable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:
AP4? I dunno. I mean, heavy bolters are kinda stuck on friggin' everything, I don't think there's a "generic" cost for them.

They're given a generic cost on p. 159 of the SM codex. This generic cost if further confirmed on, e.g., p. 176 of the SM codex: 2 heavy bolters on a Predator = 20 points upgrade.

It's relevant because the platform dictates how good a weapon can be. Something with a 6" move and no relentless with a heavy bolter is not going to be as effective as something with a 12"+2D6 move, relentless and a jink save. Could you please explain to me how those factors are irrelevant to the effectiveness of a weapon?

I have always been a proponent of the Heavy Bolter costing 5 points instead of 10.

It would make a lot of sense in the IG codex, where Autocannons also cost 10 points, and now people might want to take HBs since they'd be cheaper.

Nobody in their right mind would otherwise want to trade in 2 48" S7 AP4 shots for 3 36" S5 AP4 shots...

Traditio wrote:
In the space marines codex, heavy bolters are S5, AP 4, range 36. They get three shots and are a heavy weapon. They cost 10 points as an upgrade.

Scatter lasers are S6, range 36, get 4 shots and are a heavy weapon. They also only cost 10 points.

Scatter lasers = heavy bolters? Really?

Can someone explain this to me?

Actually Scatter Lasers are better than Heavy Bolters cause Bullets are primitive when compared to lasers. Also Eldar, you know, being one of the oldest races in the game. Falls along the same lines as why IoM plasma gets hot and Eldar doesn't.

Comparisons, assuming both weapons fire at BS 4 vs. a target of 4+ armor:

T3:

HB: 2/3 X 3 shots hit. 5/6 of those wound No armor save. Total: Roughly 1.67 unsaved wounds
SL: 2/3 X 4 shots hit. 5/6 of those wound. 1/2 of those bypass armor. Total: ((2/3 X 4) X 2/3)/2 unsaved wounds. Roughly 1.1 unsaved wounds.

Heavy bolter wins out vs. T3, 4+ armor (and no other saves available).

T4:

HB: 2/3 X 3 shots hit. 2/3 of those wound. No armor save. Total: 1.3 repeating unsaved wound.
SL: 2/3 X 4 shots hit. 5/6 of those wound. 1/2 of those bypass armor. Total: Roughly 1.1 unsaved wounds

Heavy bolter win out vs. T4, 4+ armor (and no other saves availble).

T5:

HB: 2/3 X 3 shots hit. 1/2 of those wound. No armor save. Total: 1 unsaved wound
SL: 2/3 X 4 shots hit. 2/3 of those wound. 1/2 of those bypass armor. Total: .8 repeating unsaved wounds.

Heavy bolter wins out vs. T5, 4+ armor (and no other saves available).

T6:

HB: 2/3 X 3 shots hit. 1/3 of those wound. No armor save. Total: .66 repeating unsaved wounds
SL: 2/3 X 4 shots hit. 1/2 of those wound. 1/2 of those bypass armor. Total: .66 repeating unsaved wounds

They're tied vs. T6, 4+ armor (and no other saves available).

T7:

HB: 2/3 X 3 shots hit. 1/6 of those wound. No armor save. Total: .33 repeating unsaved wounds
SL: 2/3 X 4 shots hit. 1/3 of those wound. 1/2 of those bypass armor. Total: .4 repeating unsaved wounds

Scatter laser wins vs. T7, 4+ armor

T8:

HB: 2/3 X 3 shots hit. 1/6 of those wound. No armor save. Total: .33 repeating unsaved wounds.
SL: 2/3 X 4 shots hit. 1/6 of those wound. 1/2 of those bypass armor. Total: .22 repeating unsaved wounds.

Heavy bolter wins out vs. T8, 4+ armor

T9:

HB: CANNOT WOUND
SL: 2/3 X 4 shots hit. 1/6 of those wound. 1/2 of those bypass armor. Total: .22 repeating unsaved wounds.

Scatter laser wins vs. T9, 4+ armor.

Yeah, I think that GW is overvaluing the AP 4. Note the following assumptions:

1. The armor is 4+ or inferior (doesn't hold vs. marines).
2. There are no other saves available.
3. The target is not a vehicle (at which point scatter lasers can potentially damage AV 12, whereas heavy bolters can only damage AV 11).

Plus, they are undervaluing the additional strength and the additional die roll. The chance of rolling all 6s and your opponent rolling all 1s, 2s and 3s is a slim, but still real, possibility. Statistical probabilities are just that: probabilities. Furthermore, heavy bolters are useless vs. T9, whereas scatter lasers have a shot.

Traditio wrote:

 Maelstrom808 wrote:
Now compare the available platforms they come on and how many you can take on said platform.

I'm not really sure why this is relevent. By putting the points cost of both at 10, GW is basically saying that they are equivalent. That doesn't seem particularly reasonable.

I think the problem is here in that GW has decided certain items should cost X across the board when they should be effected by the platform it is on. So many upgrades are situational or flat out do not apply when compared to others.

In an IG squad you have a HB verse a AC at the same 10 point cost. There is never ever a reason to take a HB over an autocannon when the cost the same. If they were scalled appropirately that might be the case. Another example is power weapons, if you are Int 3 or below there is really never a reason to take a sword over an axe as you are always striking last anyway. Yet they all cost the same and are available to everyone. It makes no sense.

It should really be different price for each weapon unit by unit. Under the current system most cases are usually no brainer choices.

 Xerics wrote:

Traditio wrote:
In the space marines codex, heavy bolters are S5, AP 4, range 36. They get three shots and are a heavy weapon. They cost 10 points as an upgrade.

Scatter lasers are S6, range 36, get 4 shots and are a heavy weapon. They also only cost 10 points.

Scatter lasers = heavy bolters? Really?

Can someone explain this to me?

Actually Scatter Lasers are better than Heavy Bolters cause Bullets are primitive when compared to lasers. Also Eldar, you know, being one of the oldest races in the game. Falls along the same lines as why IoM plasma gets hot and Eldar doesn't.

Points costs don't exist in the background either way, so make it far more expensive then.

It feels like the GW staff just round most options over 5 points to the nearest factor of 5. The "proper" cost of the HB might be 8 points and 11 points for the SL, but they round them both to 10 for "simplicity" (note this is an example, I have no idea of the "proper" cost of the weapons).

I think they like to go in multiplicitives of 5 though. I noticed most of my maxed out squads end in 5 or 0 so most of the time you will end up with exactly 0 at the end of your points. Seeing as how most games arent things like 1836 or some arbitrary number the above statement might actually make sense.

Here's how heavy bolters and scatter lasers fare vs. MEQs:

T3:

HB: 2/3 X 3 shots hit. 5/6 of those wound. 1/3 of those bypass armor. Total: .55 repeating unsaved wounds.
SL: 2/3 X 4 shots hit. 5/6 of those wound. 1/3 of those bypass armor. Total: .740 repeating unsaved wounds.

SL wins out.

T4:

HB: 2/3 X 3 shots hit. 2/3 of those wound. 1/3 of those bypass armor. Total: .44 repeating unsaved wounds.
SL: 2/3 X 4 shots hit. 5/6 of those wound. 1/3 of those bypass armor. Total: .740 repeating unsaved wounds

SL wins out.

T5:

HB: 2/3 X 3 shots hit. 1/2 of those wound. 1/3 of those bypass armor. Total: .33 unsaved wounds
SL: 2/3 X 4 shots hit. 2/3 of those wound. 1/3 of those bypass armor. Total: .592 repeating unsaved wounds.

SL wins out.

T6:

HB: 2/3 X 3 shots hit. 1/3 of those wound. 1/3 of those bypass armor. Total: .22 repeating unsaved wounds
SL: 2/3 X 4 shots hit. 1/2 of those wound. 1/3 of those bypass armor. Total: .44 repeating unsaved wounds

SL wins out.

T7:

HB: 2/3 X 3 shots hit. 1/6 of those wound. 1/3 of those bypass armor. Total: .11 repeating unsaved wounds
SL: 2/3 X 4 shots hit. 1/3 of those wound. 1/3 of those bypass armor. Total: .296 repeating unsaved wounds

Scatter laser wins vs. T7, 4+ armor

T8:

HB: 2/3 X 3 shots hit. 1/6 of those wound. 1/3 of those bypass armor. Total: .11 repeating unsaved wounds.
SL: 2/3 X 4 shots hit. 1/6 of those wound. 1/3 of those bypass armor. Total: .148 repeating unsaved wounds.

SL wins out.

T9:

HB: CANNOT WOUND
SL: 2/3 X 4 shots hit. 1/6 of those wound. 1/3 of those bypass armor.. Total: .148 repeating unsaved wounds.

SL wins out.

Vs. MEQs, scatter laser wins every time. Seriously, scatter lasers should be 15-20 points, not 10. Either that, or heavy bolters should be much cheaper. Scatter lasers, vs. MEQs, almost consistently deal roughly twice the damage. Therefore, they should cost twice as much.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Xerics wrote:


Actually Scatter Lasers are better than Heavy Bolters cause Bullets are primitive when compared to lasers. Also Eldar, you know, being one of the oldest races in the game. Falls along the same lines as why IoM plasma gets hot and Eldar doesn't.

Points costs don't exist in the background either way, so make it far more expensive then.

Eldar have far more advanced equipment than humans. In a wink of the eye, they could wipe all the sniveling, superstitious humans out, if they set their minds to it -- likewise, a common Eldar weapon is much better than a common human weapon. Hell, the way it's written, an Avatar should be able to single-handedly destroy an entire army of pesky humans by sneezing.

Life ain't fair. Eldar are more powerful and are meant to face stomp you with your puny bullets (bullets? REALLY? did you expect to kill warriors that are older than your species with BULLETS?! Just because your breed like rabbits?). Bwahahahahaha.

<Aims macro cannon, aims at pesky puny windrider... KKKAAABOOOOMM>

Seriously, though, point values are all over the place. Why would anyone take a chainsword over a bolt pistol? Why are Wraithknights and Dreadknights a great deal pointwise, while Land Raiders and Stormravens so freaking expensive? Why are Imperial Knights more expensive than Wraithknights? Who would ever pay points for a storm bolter? I mean, you could go on forever. There's really no point wondering why... if you don't like it, pull out your pencil and change it

nedTCM wrote:

Traditio wrote:

 Maelstrom808 wrote:
Now compare the available platforms they come on and how many you can take on said platform.

I'm not really sure why this is relevent. By putting the points cost of both at 10, GW is basically saying that they are equivalent. That doesn't seem particularly reasonable.

I think the problem is here in that GW has decided certain items should cost X across the board when they should be effected by the platform it is on. So many upgrades are situational or flat out do not apply when compared to others.

In an IG squad you have a HB verse a AC at the same 10 point cost. There is never ever a reason to take a HB over an autocannon when the cost the same. If they were scalled appropirately that might be the case. Another example is power weapons, if you are Int 3 or below there is really never a reason to take a sword over an axe as you are always striking last anyway. Yet they all cost the same and are available to everyone. It makes no sense.

It should really be different price for each weapon unit by unit. Under the current system most cases are usually no brainer choices.

Hear, hear!! Universal equipment cost is basically saying that the movement, BS, and special rules that effect shooting don't matter when it comes to balancing the cost of a gun, and that WS, # of Attacks, Initiative, and special rules that effect CC don't matter when costing a weapon. How can you say a power weapon is worth just as much for an I 3 A 1 model as it is for an I 7 A 4 model? If you cost things this way, you're crippling your ability to balance the game. The bottom line for points cost should be effectiveness on the battlefield.

 fallinq wrote:

nedTCM wrote:

Traditio wrote:

 Maelstrom808 wrote:
Now compare the available platforms they come on and how many you can take on said platform.

I'm not really sure why this is relevent. By putting the points cost of both at 10, GW is basically saying that they are equivalent. That doesn't seem particularly reasonable.

I think the problem is here in that GW has decided certain items should cost X across the board when they should be effected by the platform it is on. So many upgrades are situational or flat out do not apply when compared to others.

In an IG squad you have a HB verse a AC at the same 10 point cost. There is never ever a reason to take a HB over an autocannon when the cost the same. If they were scalled appropirately that might be the case. Another example is power weapons, if you are Int 3 or below there is really never a reason to take a sword over an axe as you are always striking last anyway. Yet they all cost the same and are available to everyone. It makes no sense.

It should really be different price for each weapon unit by unit. Under the current system most cases are usually no brainer choices.

Hear, hear!! Universal equipment cost is basically saying that the movement, BS, and special rules that effect shooting don't matter when it comes to balancing the cost of a gun, and that WS, # of Attacks, Initiative, and special rules that effect CC don't matter when costing a weapon. How can you say a power weapon is worth just as much for an I 3 A 1 model as it is for an I 7 A 4 model? If you cost things this way, you're crippling your ability to balance the game. The bottom line for points cost should be effectiveness on the battlefield.

Because GW believes you should forge a narrative, that A1 WS3 character may manage to defeat a Chaos Lord in single combat with the same weapon cost! How "Awesome" of a story that would be.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 fallinq wrote:

nedTCM wrote:

Traditio wrote:

 Maelstrom808 wrote:
Now compare the available platforms they come on and how many you can take on said platform.

I'm not really sure why this is relevent. By putting the points cost of both at 10, GW is basically saying that they are equivalent. That doesn't seem particularly reasonable.

I think the problem is here in that GW has decided certain items should cost X across the board when they should be effected by the platform it is on. So many upgrades are situational or flat out do not apply when compared to others.

In an IG squad you have a HB verse a AC at the same 10 point cost. There is never ever a reason to take a HB over an autocannon when the cost the same. If they were scalled appropirately that might be the case. Another example is power weapons, if you are Int 3 or below there is really never a reason to take a sword over an axe as you are always striking last anyway. Yet they all cost the same and are available to everyone. It makes no sense.

It should really be different price for each weapon unit by unit. Under the current system most cases are usually no brainer choices.

Hear, hear!! Universal equipment cost is basically saying that the movement, BS, and special rules that effect shooting don't matter when it comes to balancing the cost of a gun, and that WS, # of Attacks, Initiative, and special rules that effect CC don't matter when costing a weapon. How can you say a power weapon is worth just as much for an I 3 A 1 model as it is for an I 7 A 4 model? If you cost things this way, you're crippling your ability to balance the game. The bottom line for points cost should be effectiveness on the battlefield.

Because GW believes you should forge a narrative, that A1 WS3 character may manage to defeat a Chaos Lord in single combat with the same weapon cost! How "Awesome" of a story that would be.

You're upset because you aren't forging the narrative hard enough buddy!
Seriously though. They need to change the point cost of things by unit, not across the board. It's just annoying. Like, yeah, I can see the plasma pistol maybe being 15 points on a chchapter master or something, and even then it's overcost, but on my sergeants? Really?

The Scatter Laser compares to the Heavy Bolter in price but the Assault Cannon in power (a bit weaker, but probably the closest analog).

I started a Proposed Rules thread that suggests dropping it to S5, and there is a surpising amount of agreement. Not that it'll happen, but it's interesting to see how much agreement there is and how cleanly that it solves the problem.

 FakeBritishPerson wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 fallinq wrote:

nedTCM wrote:

Traditio wrote:

 Maelstrom808 wrote:
Now compare the available platforms they come on and how many you can take on said platform.

I'm not really sure why this is relevent. By putting the points cost of both at 10, GW is basically saying that they are equivalent. That doesn't seem particularly reasonable.

I think the problem is here in that GW has decided certain items should cost X across the board when they should be effected by the platform it is on. So many upgrades are situational or flat out do not apply when compared to others.

In an IG squad you have a HB verse a AC at the same 10 point cost. There is never ever a reason to take a HB over an autocannon when the cost the same. If they were scalled appropirately that might be the case. Another example is power weapons, if you are Int 3 or below there is really never a reason to take a sword over an axe as you are always striking last anyway. Yet they all cost the same and are available to everyone. It makes no sense.

It should really be different price for each weapon unit by unit. Under the current system most cases are usually no brainer choices.

Hear, hear!! Universal equipment cost is basically saying that the movement, BS, and special rules that effect shooting don't matter when it comes to balancing the cost of a gun, and that WS, # of Attacks, Initiative, and special rules that effect CC don't matter when costing a weapon. How can you say a power weapon is worth just as much for an I 3 A 1 model as it is for an I 7 A 4 model? If you cost things this way, you're crippling your ability to balance the game. The bottom line for points cost should be effectiveness on the battlefield.

Because GW believes you should forge a narrative, that A1 WS3 character may manage to defeat a Chaos Lord in single combat with the same weapon cost! How "Awesome" of a story that would be.

You're upset because you aren't forging the narrative hard enough buddy!
Seriously though. They need to change the point cost of things by unit, not across the board. It's just annoying. Like, yeah, I can see the plasma pistol maybe being 15 points on a chchapter master or something, and even then it's overcost, but on my sergeants? Really?

I have no honest to goodness clue why they never change the PP's cost, it was worth 15 points back in 2nd edition, now...? It wasn't even good in 3rd, or 4th! It's the SAME COST as a plasma gun, with rapid fire, and 24"!

I know right? I'm fine with the Plasma gun being 15 points, because it's 5 points difference from a meltagun for double rande, rapid fire, and gets hot, and -1 strength. That seems more reasonable then 15 for an s7 ap2 pistol, with gets hot. Seriously, it's terrible. I am not forging the narrative here.

Yep, welcome to GWs crazy rules.

Another "direct" comparison would be multi-lasers vs heavy bolters on chimeras. IG players almost always take the S6 gun.

I think you're overestimating the GW designer's ability to think.

Traditio wrote:
Yeah, I think that GW is overvaluing the AP 4. Note the following assumptions:

1. The armor is 4+ or inferior (doesn't hold vs. marines).
2. There are no other saves available.
3. The target is not a vehicle (at which point scatter lasers can potentially damage AV 12, whereas heavy bolters can only damage AV 11).

Plus, they are undervaluing the additional strength and the additional die roll. The chance of rolling all 6s and your opponent rolling all 1s, 2s and 3s is a slim, but still real, possibility. Statistical probabilities are just that: probabilities. Furthermore, heavy bolters are useless vs. T9, whereas scatter lasers have a shot.

The 6E Eldar codex, in addition to not allowing scatter lasers on jetbikes, actually cost scatter lasers the same as bright lances and starcannons (15 points, or a 5 point upgrade from a shuriken cannon). Not really sure why they changed the point cost there. If scatterbikes had a 15 point surcharge instead of costing exactly the same +10 points as the shuriken cannon, I would actually have to think about which one I wanted.

I think the problem there is with the Jet Bikes themselves and not really Scatterlasers. Being real Scatter and Multilasers are good weapons, but they are not particularly scary on their own. And 10 points is not a bad price for them. Their main reason for being taken before was laser lock or on Walkers, which again were not that big of a deal.

However, the bike platform they are on is absurd. Bikes are already kind of overpowered and Eldar bikes are even worse with tons of extra rules. There is no reason for them to have such high armor save. It is cheaper than a SM bike by 4 points for the cost of a S and T point. Dark eldar unit has a 5+ for 1 point less and no battle focus. Or an Ork bike which is 1 point more expensive and inferior.

If the armor of the Jetbike was dropped to 4 and maybe another point on the price per model it literally wouldn't be an issue at all because of relatively common AP4 weapons like the heavy bolter. 3+ is good because there are only a few weapons which get past that save. If it was a +4 save, a windrider player would have to be more careful with placement and when to jink or not to jink. Suddenly taking all SL doesn't seem like as good an idea because it is easier to force it to them into being an expensive but durable objective holder. Instead GW decided they needed to sell more models and made them more OP. Also by extension they kept Shining Spears in the completely useless pile as well.

The cost of the upgrade should depend on what it is upgrading from.
A SL is usually upgraded from TL shuriken catapults.
A HB would usually get upgraded from a bolter.

One reason to change costs to upgrade amongst a range of weapons is to get people to buy more of a model once they're glued the upgrades on.
If you have a Dev squad of 4x ML models, and MLs get changed to cost 10 points more, do you buy more devs to get the newest best weapons?
The same with jetbikes. Everyone with bikes already has Shuriken Cannon on them. SL now cost the same, so everyone has to buy more bikes.

So, 10 points for a similar-but-not-the-same weapon is not an easy X=Y comparison.