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.

And dead vehicles.

pm713 wrote:
And dead vehicles.

Not really. A full barrage of four BS 4 lascannons doesn't quite have a 50/50 chance of killing a Rhino. It takes 5.4 shots to hull point it out, and the possibility of rolling a "6" on the first two possible pens, doesn't put the chances back to 50/50.
Thanks to the AP 2/1 nerf of 7th ed. Very few players in general seem to grasp how epicly bad single shot non-D heavy weapons are atm.

Martel732 wrote:

pm713 wrote:
And dead vehicles.

Not really. A full barrage of four BS 4 lascannons doesn't quite have a 50/50 chance of killing a Rhino. It takes 5.4 shots to hull point it out, and the possibility of rolling a "6" on the first two possible pens, doesn't put the chances back to 50/50.
Thanks to the AP 2/1 nerf of 7th ed. Very few players in general seem to grasp how epicly bad single shot non-D heavy weapons are atm.

I used to use missile launchers. Tell me I don't know.

Well, you could certainly be one of the few. But I look at proposed lists in that section and am flabbergasted as to how many marine players are still using non-grav devastators.

Martel732 wrote:
Well, you could certainly be one of the few. But I look at proposed lists in that section and am flabbergasted as to how many marine players are still using non-grav devastators.

You know some people are in metas where you can get away with that.

pm713 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Well, you could certainly be one of the few. But I look at proposed lists in that section and am flabbergasted as to how many marine players are still using non-grav devastators.

You know some people are in metas where you can get away with that.

But they're not even good in a casual game. Can't. Kill. A. Rhino.

Martel732 wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Well, you could certainly be one of the few. But I look at proposed lists in that section and am flabbergasted as to how many marine players are still using non-grav devastators.

You know some people are in metas where you can get away with that.

But they're not even good in a casual game. Can't. Kill. A. Rhino.

I'm guessing you added cover into that.

No, I didn't. Just missing and rolls one "1" to pen. With cover, it gets even worse.

I think for a small number of upgrades it works, but for most everything else it falls apart. A la carte seems to work best with things like 5 pt upgrades that offer minimal impact overall like melta bombs. They are good and useful, but situationally so and don't turn any unit into an unstoppable threat. They are meh more than anything. Things like that are probably okay to leave as a la carte. Same goes for one shot items though some should be cheaper. A OS plasma, flamer, grav, melta should really be only 5 pts imo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Well, you could certainly be one of the few. But I look at proposed lists in that section and am flabbergasted as to how many marine players are still using non-grav devastators.

You know some people are in metas where you can get away with that.

But they're not even good in a casual game. Can't. Kill. A. Rhino.

I could be wrong, but I think melta is still good for salamanders in many cases. Certain other CT may make other weapons more usable to certain degrees. I do in general agree with you Martel that single shot non-D weapons are pretty bad in this edition (with a few exceptions, which are usually high str low ap large blast templates).

Martel732 wrote:
Well, you could certainly be one of the few. But I look at proposed lists in that section and am flabbergasted as to how many marine players are still using non-grav devastators.

Well, it's not like a single Grav Cannon can do the same thing. Only 1 out of 6 Hits will do anything to a Vehicle. Even with 5 shots, you're looking at 3+ to hit, so one out of three are likely to miss. So 3-4 Hits make not even a guarantee to get the Hull Point loss and Immobilization. The Lascannon Glances a Rhino front on a 2, and Penetrates on a 3+, which means that it is more likely to Immobilize and has a chance to Explodes the Rhino which the Grav Cannon cannot do.

That doesn't even consider things like Range where a Lascannon is capable if hitting over half the board easily, depending on its position, while the Grav Cannon has to get almost as close as the Multimelta to be effective, especially if moving.

Sure, you can Deep Strike the Grav Cannon in, but that is usually a one time trick, and you have to get lucky in order to Gate the unit anywhere else. The Lascannon however, can just keep piling it on without having to move much.

 Charistoph wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Well, you could certainly be one of the few. But I look at proposed lists in that section and am flabbergasted as to how many marine players are still using non-grav devastators.

Well, it's not like a single Grav Cannon can do the same thing. Only 1 out of 6 Hits will do anything to a Vehicle. Even with 5 shots, you're looking at 3+ to hit, so one out of three are likely to miss. So 3-4 Hits make not even a guarantee to get the Hull Point loss and Immobilization. The Lascannon Glances a Rhino front on a 2, and Penetrates on a 3+, which means that it is more likely to Immobilize and has a chance to Explodes the Rhino which the Grav Cannon cannot do.

That doesn't even consider things like Range where a Lascannon is capable if hitting over half the board easily, depending on its position, while the Grav Cannon has to get almost as close as the Multimelta to be effective, especially if moving.

Sure, you can Deep Strike the Grav Cannon in, but that is usually a one time trick, and you have to get lucky in order to Gate the unit anywhere else. The Lascannon however, can just keep piling it on without having to move much.

The thing is when do you usually see a single lascannon or a single grav cannon? You usually see them in multiples. Like 4 lascannons and 4 grav cannons. The mass volume of fire almost always wins out. 4 lascannon shots are not as good as 20 grav cannon shots.

A la carte works well for *vehicles* in that usually it's a one-choice only option which has the same overall effect regardless of the mounting platform.

I'd go further and say that if flyers were treated as build-a-bear gun platforms based on one shot/limited ammunition weapons they'd be a lot more interesting, and more inclined to lower points costs.

Infantry it's an entirely different problem. SM is the easy example but i'd suggest IG have it worse since we're still paying premiums to use heavy weapons, and horrendously priced upgrades. The adjustments in the Montka book for cadian heirlooms were a step in the right direction though - they realised that a situational 4++ save with rending was better than a power axe, and a flat 1/4 chance wounding laspistol would make sense at 5 points.

Even on vehicles, it can vary. A Scatter Laser is worth more on a War Walker than a Serpent.

The nose cannon on a Serpent tends to be worth more than the one on the Falcon (although both are fairly close to 10).

The ork codex is one of the the best examples why this system is really crappy.

A weapon just doesn't add the same power to the game on a warboss lv model as on a nob lv model. This makes all the low power models with those weapons horrible over costed.
Things get even worse when the price also is kept the same over different codex's .

Guards should not never pay the same for a weapon as Space marines or eldar do.

 oldzoggy wrote:
Guards should not never pay the same for a weapon as Space marines or eldar do.

That much, I can easily agree. A Devastator and Tactical Marine will technically get the same mileage out of the same Weapon (Devastator just can have more Brothers with the same gun). But I don't think anyone will argue that a Heavy Weapons Team will match or beat an Astartes against anything but Grav hits.

The poll and question are misleading.

I've never claimed that a la carte works. My question is whether, given the fact that things won't actually be fairly priced, whether a la carte is the lesser of two evils.

I say yes.

 Traditio wrote:
The poll and question are misleading.

How is this poll/question misleading? Or is this statement a joke? Because if it's not a joke, I'd like to know why you think this is the case.

Personally, I think that it can work but GW has a habit of not executing sound methods of rules development well.

Bharring wrote:
Can items be fairly priced a la carte?

By this, it is meant that a single point value can be listed, and any unit that can take that upgrade should pay that amount, as it is exactly what it is worth.

Multiple options may be selected.

Let's take power swords as an example.

On your average Space Marine or IG dude, it's 15 ppm. All it does is give their melee attacks Ap3.
However, the Space Marine is swinging at +1I, +1WS, +1S, and is likely to have more attacks. In addition to this, the marine is faar more survivable with his T4, 3+ Save and higher Ld. This means the marine gets to use his sword more, is more likely to hit and wound, and it's generally considered a good investment. In addition to this, it increases his points cost by around 100%.

The IG on the other hand is likely to never see melee. He swings less, hits less, wounds less, and due to the sword almost always being on a character, this means that he'll probably get challenged out and killed at the I4 or higher steps. Further to this, it increases his points cost by 300%.

The Space Marine gets far more out of those 15 points than the Guardsman.

While true that the Marine gets more from a Sword, think about the Power Axe too.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
While true that the Marine gets more from a Sword, think about the Power Axe too.

A Sister gets more from the Axe than the Sword, but still doesn't generally get 15 points of value from either one. (Certainly neither is as helpful as a plasma pistol, and that's still overpriced at 15.) It's probably much the same for a Guardsman, except they have a worse save, so are even less likely to survive to swing. The Sister, at least, might survive the power sword. 6++, granted, but...

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
While true that the Marine gets more from a Sword, think about the Power Axe too.

Similar issue. There is a closing of gap in the usefulness disparity, however.

Both models get dropped to I1, but the SM again is likely to have more attacks, and has higher WS, S and durability. The marine still gets a fair bit more out of the Axe than the IG, even though the two are now taking (generally) different attitudes towards using it.

 Selym wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
While true that the Marine gets more from a Sword, think about the Power Axe too.

Similar issue. There is a closing of gap in the usefulness disparity, however.

Both models get dropped to I1, but the SM again is likely to have more attacks, and has higher WS, S and durability. The marine still gets a fair bit more out of the Axe than the IG, even though the two are now taking (generally) different attitudes towards using it.

On the other hand the Space Marine will also lose an Init advantage against a fair amount of opponents whereas the Guardsmen doesn't.

True, but the IG often will not survive to the I1 step anyway. A SM may well do so, with a reasonable chance even against Ap3 opponents. The IG will likely die to the standard troopers of most things in melee.

And then we're back to the earlier disparity.

The only time you want a guardsman with an axe is in a massive blob with commissars and priests and whatnot. Space marines just take such things as par for the course.