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.
Blacksails wrote: I can't say I enjoy armoury style wargear selection. I'd much rather have all the options available on the page with the unit profile and cost.
Preach man; much easier to just have it all in one place tailored to the unit.
Considering that they did that in Age of Sigmar, I am honestly surprised that we didn't get that in 8th Edition 40K. But that is the price to pay for such available customization on our models, I suppose. In AoS, you basically get one or two options for weapons, with the occasional unit getting to take so many "special weapons" per-so-many models in the unit.
I would rather each unit type have its own Points profile chart rather than a large shared table. A Power Fist on a Devestator Sergeant is (hopefully) not as likely to be as used as a Power Fist on an Assault Marine Sergeant, and would have fewer attacks than a Captain on Bike or Jump Pack.
Crablezworth wrote: When I first saw all the weird point costs I thought for a second "maybe gw did, maybe they finally built some sort of internal metric (think vbr) to help objectively balance power as best as possible. I'm starting to think they spit balled every last point cost...
I think they probably did use a formula since the points are just so weird. I'm also convinced their formula is wrong.
It's most notable with Eldar and Guardian Jetbikes. They have to take twin Shuriken Catapults for 10 points base, but can swap those out for Shuriken Cannons which are 12 points base or Scatter Lasers which are 15 base.
So rather than 10 additional points to give a Jetbike a Shuriken Cannon you're now effectively paying 2 additional points.
Blacksails wrote: I can't say I enjoy armoury style wargear selection. I'd much rather have all the options available on the page with the unit profile and cost.
Preach man; much easier to just have it all in one place tailored to the unit.
Considering that they did that in Age of Sigmar, I am honestly surprised that we didn't get that in 8th Edition 40K. But that is the price to pay for such available customization on our models, I suppose. In AoS, you basically get one or two options for weapons, with the occasional unit getting to take so many "special weapons" per-so-many models in the unit.
I would rather each unit type have its own Points profile chart rather than a large shared table. A Power Fist on a Devestator Sergeant is (hopefully) not as likely to be as used as a Power Fist on an Assault Marine Sergeant, and would have fewer attacks than a Captain on Bike or Jump Pack.
Okay but... shouldn't that be a deterrent to doing it? A Devestator Sergeant shouldn't get his PF dirt cheap, just because it's not going to be used much. Instead, the high price means you shouldn't equip him with the PF unless you have a good reason to. It just seems like this is rewarding (or heavily mitigating the punishment of) people who made bad choices and didn't think through their army properly.
It's not just better for the game, again putting it on the player to figure out optimal distribution, but it also leads to armies that make more sense. No, they probably wouldn't waste the powerful and rare melee weapon on the guy whose unit rarely gets close to the enemy. Those weapons are better used elsewhere. It should be a poor choice on table because it'd be a poor choice for any army/general to make. Subpar unit composition shouldn't be rewarded anymore than subpar unit utilization.
This is like arguing people who try to use devastators as a melee assault unit shouldn't be penalized. Or normal terminators getting into a shoot out with scarab occult terminators shouldn't find himself losing. They made a bad call, that's what happens.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/01 16:46:13
The issue is not that Points of wargears and Units datasheets are in two different places, that how it always was before 6th, 6th made people lazy, with everything on the same page.
The issue is that the points value is completly out of whack!!!
A New land raider is 360 points!!!, Monoliths are in the 400 pts, but for some reason their Power levels of both is 19...
Its also something i found strange, that the relation between points and Power level are also completly out there.
2 units will cost 5 Power Level, but their points costs are completly different...
If there was somekind of consistency, then okay, those who doesn't want to make themselfs sick with the points values( come one 260pts for a fething Defiler...), they could use the Power levels stuff, but there is no consistency about it!.
Global variables are fine if they're made constant. Although I personally would try and put this kind of information in a configuration file. It depends on the application.
That said, why should a power fist be cheaper for a Devastator Sergeant? Just because it's a bad idea to kit him out with this gear, doesn't mean it should be cheaper.
Back to your programming analogy, treat wargear as a part of the base class for a unit, and each unit inherits that specific class. Or, if you're a .net programmer, just have it be an interface. This is common practice and totally acceptable.
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
Rippy wrote: Why would one unit be much better with one weapon over another unit? BS? They are already paying for that? I am confused.
So, a dreadnought, a terminator and a landspeeder are all armed with an assault cannon. Should that assault cannon be exactly the same cost?
Yep. All three options have pros and cons, all three have potential uses. You should be figuring out if the unit needs the assault cannon enough to justify the cost, after you've figured out how you intend to use the unit. Alternatively, you could see which unit uses them most efficiently, given you already know both that you want to use the assault cannon and how you plan to use the assault cannon.
The number of variables makes in hard to definitively say which usage is best. Is it better to be more mobile? Well, does deepstriking or a land speeder offer the sort of mobility you need with this gun. Or maybe the toughness of the unit holding it is more important. Maybe putting in on a dedicated ranged unit makes more sense, or putting it on a unit that relies on ranged fire for dealing with masses enemies and melee for tough enemies is a better fit.
Rather than have developers try to account for every detail, give it a flat cost and make the player figure out where it does and doesn't work for their army. It's simply a better way to do it overall.
Rippy wrote: Why would one unit be much better with one weapon over another unit? BS? They are already paying for that? I am confused.
So, a dreadnought, a terminator and a landspeeder are all armed with an assault cannon. Should that assault cannon be exactly the same cost?
pretty much this.... a more durable platform is important, a power axe on a 1-2 wound model is different than a power axe on a 4-6 wound model in terms of usefulness. with assault cannons I see assault cannon razerbacks as a bargain for the durability plus 12 shots! (also means gw sells a lo of razorback kits and land raider crusader upgrade sprues as people want those assault cannons, win win)
That said, why should a power fist be cheaper for a Devastator Sergeant? Just because it's a bad idea to kit him out with this gear, doesn't mean it should be cheaper.
That's exactly what it means. Overpriced options are mistakes in design, not intentional traps for n00bs.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/01 17:45:58
The old meta is dead and the new meta struggles to be born. Now is the time of munchkins.
Rippy wrote: Why would one unit be much better with one weapon over another unit? BS? They are already paying for that? I am confused.
So, a dreadnought, a terminator and a landspeeder are all armed with an assault cannon. Should that assault cannon be exactly the same cost?
Yep. All three options have pros and cons, all three have potential uses. You should be figuring out if the unit needs the assault cannon enough to justify the cost, after you've figured out how you intend to use the unit. Alternatively, you could see which unit uses them most efficiently, given you already know both that you want to use the assault cannon and how you plan to use the assault cannon.
The number of variables makes in hard to definitively say which usage is best. Is it better to be more mobile? Well, does deepstriking or a land speeder offer the sort of mobility you need with this gun. Or maybe the toughness of the unit holding it is more important. Maybe putting in on a dedicated ranged unit makes more sense, or putting it on a unit that relies on ranged fire for dealing with masses enemies and melee for tough enemies is a better fit.
Rather than have developers try to account for every detail, give it a flat cost and make the player figure out where it does and doesn't work for their army. It's simply a better way to do it overall.
But thats not balanced. If all 3 arent equal because one is better with assault cannon as the rest thats obviously not balanced. you have undercosted units.
That said, why should a power fist be cheaper for a Devastator Sergeant? Just because it's a bad idea to kit him out with this gear, doesn't mean it should be cheaper.
That's exactly what it means. Overpriced options are mistakes in design, not intentional traps for n00bs.
It sounds like you're quoting out of a book. This isn't an issue of grand design philosophy. You can take the Dev sergeant and four naked marines the same as you can take a Tac sergeant and four naked marine. Making the Dev fist cheaper just makes them a cheap source of powerfists, not a properly balanced upgrade. It would be different if the heavy weapons were mandatory, but they're not. You need more context IMO.
He knows that I know and you know that he actually doesn't know the rules at all.
I remember in the 5th Edition Guard book where a Power Weapon cost 10 points, and a Power Fist cost 15, and a Plasma Gun cost 15 points. These points costs were for all units in the Codex to take, whether a Sergeant, Commissar, or Lord Commissar, Guardsman or Veteran or Stormtrooper.
By the same token, in 5th Edition, for Space Marines, a Power Weapon was 15, with Power Fists being 25, and Plasma Guns were also 15. Back then, you could justify why the Weapon Upgrades were more expensive for Space Marines: the models were better on an individual basis. The higher stats (Weapons Skill, Strength, Toughenss, Initiative, Attacks, Leadership, and Saves) of Space Marines over Guardsmen was an easy justification for the increased costs, as each of those would affect the chance of using the melee weapons effectively.
Plasma guns could also be the same for both armies, because Guardsmen Veterans and Stormtroopers were all BS 4, just like Marines, or could be spammed in Special Weapons or Command Squads or hidden in Platoons. Because less of the model's stats affect the Plasmaguns, they would not need to be quite so different in points costs between the armies.
My point is that not every weapon should cost the same for every unit, but some won't make a big difference if they are the same. When the abilities of the weapon are going to be affected by the unit's or model's stats, then it should be reflected in its points costs. If the weapon or upgrade can be used and is not affected at all by the model or unit, then a points costs difference is less significant.
If a long range gun on a static model, say a Lascannon wielding Devestator Marine, costs X points, what should it cost on a Predator Tank or a Storm Talon? One is a single wound infantry model that can hide, the middle is slightly more mobile and much tougher, and the last is a very fast but less durable flyer. When the flyer can get across the board so quickly, does the Lascannon still costs X points, since it can get in physical proximity to the target and not worry about range? If on the Predator, does the Predator's high wound count justify the Lascannon costing more than X points?
Or we tie the weapons, units, and upgrades costs directly to the logistical capabilities of the army, like resource management in an RTS game. You have so many points to make an army, and you make each upgrade cost a flat points value to represent the resources available to you army, and it is up to you to decide what upgrades you use on which units.
-----
By the Emperor, I am starting to really see the advantage of Power Levels over Points Costs now.
SilverAlien wrote: Okay but... shouldn't that be a deterrent to doing it? A Devestator Sergeant shouldn't get his PF dirt cheap, just because it's not going to be used much. Instead, the high price means you shouldn't equip him with the PF unless you have a good reason to. It just seems like this is rewarding (or heavily mitigating the punishment of) people who made bad choices and didn't think through their army properly.
It's not just better for the game, again putting it on the player to figure out optimal distribution, but it also leads to armies that make more sense. No, they probably wouldn't waste the powerful and rare melee weapon on the guy whose unit rarely gets close to the enemy. Those weapons are better used elsewhere. It should be a poor choice on table because it'd be a poor choice for any army/general to make. Subpar unit composition shouldn't be rewarded anymore than subpar unit utilization.
Deliberately bad options should not exist. If an option is overpriced to discourage people from taking it then just remove that option and simplify the rules. If you're going to have an option then it should be a viable choice, with a point cost that accurately represents its power.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Rippy wrote: Why would one unit be much better with one weapon over another unit? BS? They are already paying for that? I am confused.
So, a dreadnought, a terminator and a landspeeder are all armed with an assault cannon. Should that assault cannon be exactly the same cost?
Yep. All three options have pros and cons, all three have potential uses. You should be figuring out if the unit needs the assault cannon enough to justify the cost, after you've figured out how you intend to use the unit. Alternatively, you could see which unit uses them most efficiently, given you already know both that you want to use the assault cannon and how you plan to use the assault cannon.
The number of variables makes in hard to definitively say which usage is best. Is it better to be more mobile? Well, does deepstriking or a land speeder offer the sort of mobility you need with this gun. Or maybe the toughness of the unit holding it is more important. Maybe putting in on a dedicated ranged unit makes more sense, or putting it on a unit that relies on ranged fire for dealing with masses enemies and melee for tough enemies is a better fit.
Rather than have developers try to account for every detail, give it a flat cost and make the player figure out where it does and doesn't work for their army. It's simply a better way to do it overall.
But thats not balanced. If all 3 arent equal because one is better with assault cannon as the rest thats obviously not balanced. you have undercosted units.
Again, the idea a unit is always 100% better than another with the weapon isn't correct. As I tried to make a point of. How do we define better? I listed off multiple reasons it might make sense on any of the units. Just about any upgrade can have a usage, there is rarely a single correct answer.
SilverAlien wrote: Okay but... shouldn't that be a deterrent to doing it? A Devestator Sergeant shouldn't get his PF dirt cheap, just because it's not going to be used much. Instead, the high price means you shouldn't equip him with the PF unless you have a good reason to. It just seems like this is rewarding (or heavily mitigating the punishment of) people who made bad choices and didn't think through their army properly.
It's not just better for the game, again putting it on the player to figure out optimal distribution, but it also leads to armies that make more sense. No, they probably wouldn't waste the powerful and rare melee weapon on the guy whose unit rarely gets close to the enemy. Those weapons are better used elsewhere. It should be a poor choice on table because it'd be a poor choice for any army/general to make. Subpar unit composition shouldn't be rewarded anymore than subpar unit utilization.
Deliberately bad options should not exist. If an option is overpriced to discourage people from taking it then just remove that option and simplify the rules. If you're going to have an option then it should be a viable choice, with a point cost that accurately represents its power.
It's not overpriced, it's priced flatly. It is priced according to what it does. If you use it poorly, it still isn't overpriced, you just made bad choices. If I take a landraider for the express purpose of charging enemy units with the rank itself, the tank doesn't suddenly count as overcosted, I just made bad choices. And honestly, taking a land raider to use as an assault unit probably isn't that much worse than equipping your long range heavy weapons team with tons of melee gear.
Listbuilding is about finding ways to turn apparently bad choices into good ones, find neat synergies, figure out what upgrades work for what units. Maybe you will find a way to make a power fist devastator worth the points (given heavy weapons are more mobile now, it's entirely possible someone might). But if you can't think of a way to make an upgrade earn its points back, don't demand that unit gets a discount, just don't take the upgrade. And if that kind of listbuilding is not for you, narrative and open play are perfectly viable ways to enjoy the game.
As an example, someone already pointed out devastators don't have to take heavy weapons, plus they can be combat squaded. You could run a team of 5 (+cherub) as a tactical squad, except take one heavy weapon instead of special. The sergeant can negate the movement penalty for the heavy weapon. Might be a good way of running something short range, like a multi melta. The cherub can even let him double tap when in melta range. The other marines act as ablative wounds, to protect the weapon that costs as much as two of them, and they can toss bolter fire at a different target in the mean time. In this scenario a power fist starts to make more sense, cheaper than a multi melta and can help if the tank/MC/walker decides to charge the squad.
Is that a good choice? I have no idea, I've not compared it to other options or played 8th edition yet. But it strikes me as having advantages in an edition where anti tank firepower is expensive and slots are fairly easy to come by (not to mention, msu spam can help generate extra command points). Regardless, part of the fun is looking for things like this.
No it isn't, because it's priced using a flat pricing system that ignores the capabilities of the individual instance of a power first in your army. Stop thinking in terms of raw stat lines, they're just a means to an end. What matters is how much power taking an upgrade adds to your army over the course of a full game. And when you consider that it's pretty obvious that power fists do not add equal amounts of power, and should not have equal point costs if you're attempting to price them according to what they do.
And, again, bad choices should not exist. If you're deliberately overpricing something to discourage people from "using it badly" then just remove that option entirely. Keeping bad options that nobody is supposed to take is part of the rules bloat that plagues 40k.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
For the record, currently you could buy a 10-man devastator squad, give 4 of the members heavy weapons, give the power fist to the sarge, buy a razorback, and combat squad them so the 4 heavy weapons sit with a bolter jockey and then the sarge takes the remaining 4 bolter jockeys and ride in the razorback, punching things all the live long day.
Gwar! wrote:Huh, I had no idea Graham McNeillm Dav Torpe and Pete Haines posted on Dakka. Hi Graham McNeillm Dav Torpe and Pete Haines!!!!!!!!!!!!! Can I have an Autograph!
Kanluwen wrote:
Hell, I'm not that bothered by the Stormraven. Why? Because, as it stands right now, it's "limited use".When it's shoehorned in to the Codex: Space Marines, then yeah. I'll be irked.
When I'm editing alot, you know I have a gakload of homework to (not) do.
Rippy wrote: Why would one unit be much better with one weapon over another unit? BS? They are already paying for that? I am confused.
So, a dreadnought, a terminator and a landspeeder are all armed with an assault cannon. Should that assault cannon be exactly the same cost?
pretty much this.... a more durable platform is important, a power axe on a 1-2 wound model is different than a power axe on a 4-6 wound model in terms of usefulness. with assault cannons I see assault cannon razerbacks as a bargain for the durability plus 12 shots! (also means gw sells a lo of razorback kits and land raider crusader upgrade sprues as people want those assault cannons, win win)
The durability of the model has nothing to do with damage.
The durability of a land raider is in it's base cost. It's damage output is in the weapons. While I get that 'a more durable models gets to fire a bigger gun for longer' you're going to find yourself fielding fewer big guns just from the base cost of that platform.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/01 20:20:46
Didn't the Tyranids have different costs for the same weapon for different units?
And a Lascannon or Powerfist now is cheaper for Imperial Guard that to Space Marines. So things have been improved, and with Tyranids as an example is totally possible for GW to give different costs to the same weapon for different units (The powerfist for a commander or a devastator sargeant for example)
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
No it isn't, because it's priced using a flat pricing system that ignores the capabilities of the individual instance of a power first in your army. Stop thinking in terms of raw stat lines, they're just a means to an end. What matters is how much power taking an upgrade adds to your army over the course of a full game. And when you consider that it's pretty obvious that power fists do not add equal amounts of power, and should not have equal point costs if you're attempting to price them according to what they do.
And, again, bad choices should not exist. If you're deliberately overpricing something to discourage people from "using it badly" then just remove that option entirely. Keeping bad options that nobody is supposed to take is part of the rules bloat that plagues 40k.
It isn't overpriced for the last time. It is priced according to what the weapon does. As is the unit. If you put a weapon and unit together that don't complement each other, you get less than the sum of its parts. Find two that do complement each other, you get more. That's how synergy works.
Power is subjective, and means more than "how many wounds can this unit deal out each turn". How do you price a power fist for a devastator squad fairly? Do you assume the unit behaves "normally", grabs some heavy weapons, and hunkers down at max range? Do we consider the options for loadouts that include close range mobile multi melta squad? Should we consider someone taking a devastator squad bare, with just power fist and normal bolters?
Bad choices will always exist, because poor judgment will always exist. People can always end up putting points into an upgrade they don't end up using properly. Any item can be overcosted if the person using it has no idea what they are doing. Which accounts for almost every example given so far, people complaining an upgrade or unit costs too much because they absolutely failed to use it properly. If you cut the price because of them, others will now find ways to use the upgrade which make it appear underpriced. Again, a really cheap powerfist on devastators might make a more unconventional build involving 1-2 multi melta and powerfist more effective for its price than other options.
Again, this is absolutely about forcing people to actually think through their choices. Look at how many people have found ways to make previously "useless" upgrade or "overpriced" unit worth its points (or at least much closer to that).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/01 20:33:51
Crablezworth wrote: When I first saw all the weird point costs I thought for a second "maybe gw did, maybe they finally built some sort of internal metric (think vbr) to help objectively balance power as best as possible. I'm starting to think they spit balled every last point cost...
Seems like they have a good idea what they're doing to me. Even a strength dependent weapon (power fist) comes out fairly even. Would you like to revise your statement?
100 shots/attacks with a weapon versus T3 through T12 and AS 2+ through 6+
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2017/06/01 20:48:59
This is a really silly thread. First many units have been paying the same for weapons for a while, but i can see that the "it's always been that way doesnt mean it should stay that way" argument is a reasonable one.
However the better ballistic and attack profile is paid for by the units. In 8th thier are units that have very different prices for just having 1 or 2 better in stats, and so you pay for that portion of the damage output in the base cost. Most of the cost is durability, but some of a models base cost is its ws/BSStr and # of atracks
mmimzie wrote: This is a really silly thread. First many units have been paying the same for weapons for a while, but i can see that the "it's always been that way doesnt mean it should stay that way" argument is a reasonable one.
However the better ballistic and attack profile is paid for by the units. In 8th thier are units that have very different prices for just having 1 or 2 better in stats, and so you pay for that portion of the damage output in the base cost. Most of the cost is durability, but some of a models base cost is its ws/BSStr and # of atracks
But that's just not true for upgrades. Especially in the case of the PF where you get more of it if your base strength was already better.
Playing mostly Necromunda and Battletech, Malifaux is awesome too!
mmimzie wrote: This is a really silly thread. First many units have been paying the same for weapons for a while, but i can see that the "it's always been that way doesnt mean it should stay that way" argument is a reasonable one.
However the better ballistic and attack profile is paid for by the units. In 8th thier are units that have very different prices for just having 1 or 2 better in stats, and so you pay for that portion of the damage output in the base cost. Most of the cost is durability, but some of a models base cost is its ws/BS Str and # of atracks
Toughness, Wounds, and Armor Save informs the majority of the base price. WS, BS, and S does not unless there is a weapon "baked in".
We can clearly see based on the numbers above. We can also take a simple example for base cost - the Forgefiend, Maulerfiend, and Defiler.
All of these are T7, 3+/5++, and renegerate.
Forgefiend has to pay for all of it's options. So it is the most "pure".
Maulerfiend gets it's fists for free.
Defiler gets battle cannon and fists for free.
So, with everything else being the same between mauler and forge we can say that it's fists are likely worth 30 points.
Maulerfiend fists are Sx2 AP3 3 damage.
The defiler BS is 4+. The same as Guard. Guard pay 22 points for BC.
Defiler claws are Sx2 AP3 D6 damage.
So if the Forgefiend is "pure" (as compared to these other units) then:
The defiler is paying 20 points for it's extra 2 wounds, 22 points for it's BC, and much more than 30 points for its claws - so 50.
Defiler has 3A at S16, which means the holy wounding T8 on 2s this alone should make it's weapon worth the price of admission.
I can't find any other unit that can get S16 with a doubling weapon so i'll try and math it backwards, but they are damn near the same points cost with some other factors that can shift it either way.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/06/02 02:01:25
Wait. So I'm following... because you can now go to the armory and pull out an expensive weapon and give it to a less than optimal unit, that's a problem? If the SM captain gets way more out of a PF than a sarg... then if you believe that, don't do it. And that captain is paying for that better ability in his cost. So no, in sum total the SM cap with a PF isn't paying the same as the Sarg.
This is a total non sequitur thread
DO:70S++G++M+B++I+Pw40k93/f#++D++++A++++/eWD-R++++T(D)DM+ Note: Records since 2010, lists kept current (W-D-L) Blue DP Crusade 126-11-6 Biel-Tan Aspect Waves 2-0-2 Looted Green Horde smash your face in 32-7-8 Broadside/Shield Drone/Kroot blitz goodness 23-3-4 Grey Hunters galore 17-5-5 Khan Bikes Win 63-1-1 Tanith with Pardus Armor 11-0-0 Crimson Tide 59-4-0 Green/Raven/Deathwing 18-0-0 Jumping GK force with Inq. 4-0-0 BTemplars w LRs 7-1-2 IH Legion with Automata 8-0-0 RG Legion w Adepticon medal 6-0-0 Primaris and Little Buddies 7-0-0
QM Templates here, HH army builder app for both v1 and v2 One Page 40k Ruleset for Game Beginners
This reminds me the very first WD in bought. It was for the release of the 2nd edition. They explained a major change from first edition that was a same weapon (let say an autocanon) has to cost more in the hands of a space marine than of an ork, because it was mor effective when used by the space marine (increased balistic skill and general resilience of the model).
The problem I see in this new edition is the armor modifier is too high already. -1 should be only for very good weapons, -2 very exceptional and -3 only for the biggest weapons.
So the problem is it works exactly the same as the old point system only better and they've now created a precedent for weapons costing more/less for different types of units?
7000 
Blue DP Crusade 126-11-6 
Biel-Tan Aspect Waves 2-0-2 
Looted Green Horde smash your face in 32-7-8 
Broadside/Shield Drone/Kroot blitz goodness 23-3-4 
Grey Hunters galore 17-5-5 
Khan Bikes Win 63-1-1 
Tanith with Pardus Armor 11-0-0 
Crimson Tide 59-4-0 
Jumping GK force with Inq. 4-0-0 
BTemplars w LRs 7-1-2 
IH Legion with Automata 8-0-0 
RG Legion w Adepticon medal 6-0-0 