Switch Theme:

Vulture Gunship - Needs a Nerf?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Douglas Bader






Daedalus81 wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:


And the Vulture gunship is consistent with the precedents established by the "main GW" index books.


No, it isn't. FW is most definitely a rush job and it's hard to say what was lost in translation.


It absolutely is. The stat line (its supposed "excessive durability") is inherited from the Valkyrie, and its double punisher cannons are a direct result of the GW precedent of twin-linked weapons becoming double shots in 8th. It's exactly what you would expect if you translated the 7th edition Vulture according to the rules set by "main GW" for turning 7th edition units into 8th edition units.

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. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Peregrine wrote:


It absolutely is. The stat line (its supposed "excessive durability") is inherited from the Valkyrie, and its double punisher cannons are a direct result of the GW precedent of twin-linked weapons becoming double shots in 8th. It's exactly what you would expect if you translated the 7th edition Vulture according to the rules set by "main GW" for turning 7th edition units into 8th edition units.


The rules are consistent. The points are not. A Valkyrie is 130 base. The Vulture is 112.

The TPGC is double the point efficiency for a weapon of it's type - assuming hover.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/07/13 02:43:42


 
   
Made in us
Rough Rider with Boomstick





The Vulture is 110, though presumably the 20 point difference is because of the fact that they have identical hulls, but the Valkyrie has a 12-model transport capacity, and transport capacity has a point cost now (though we don't know exactly what that cost is supposed to be).

Though the Vendetta is 110 points too, despite also having an identical hull and 12-model transport capacity. So not sure what's going on there.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 ross-128 wrote:
The Vulture is 110, though presumably the 20 point difference is because of the fact that they have identical hulls, but the Valkyrie has a 12-model transport capacity, and transport capacity has a point cost now (though we don't know exactly what that cost is supposed to be).

Though the Vendetta is 110 points too, despite also having an identical hull and 12-model transport capacity. So not sure what's going on there.


Perhaps. The durability of the base Vulture isn't so much the problem as the TPGC in my mind.

I'm not certain that transport holds the value. I think it might actually be hard points. I counted one shot and non-sponson/turret weapons as secondaries. A turret usually carries a much larger weapon.



Now a Vulture is 112 with 4 hard points, but to get the TPGC it has to trade in 3 of them to get it. So, maybe it's a fair trade? Gut feeling says it's edging the line a little too much.







This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2017/07/13 03:53:47


 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





 ross-128 wrote:
The Vulture is 110, though presumably the 20 point difference is because of the fact that they have identical hulls, but the Valkyrie has a 12-model transport capacity, and transport capacity has a point cost now (though we don't know exactly what that cost is supposed to be).

Though the Vendetta is 110 points too, despite also having an identical hull and 12-model transport capacity. So not sure what's going on there.


The Vendetta does have to pay for more expensive weapon options - even downgrading to hellstrikes still costs you 80pts in required weapons. I feel as if that's the real problem with the Vulture in specific; several other twin-weapons had their points costs adjusted in some places (up or down) and upping the twin Punisher Gatling canons cost would be a very easy fix.

As to fliers as a whole, I feel that's more a problem with having a dedicated detachment for fliers available - feel as if the Super-Heavy and Air Wing detachments (the 3-5 LoW and Flier detachments respectively) should not be allowed in Matched Play/ITC format play. That leaves flyer slots in other detachments, obviously, but at least there they aren't the required/mandatory choice so a points tax would exist for a flyer-centric list.
   
Made in us
Rough Rider with Boomstick





The thing about the twin punisher though, is that its cost is directly in line with the regular punisher. A Punisher is 20 points, a twin punisher is 40 points, exactly twice as much. Is the base Punisher underpriced too? Well it is one of the stronger options on the LRBT I guess, but I don't know if that's saying much.

Maybe the best thing to compare the Vulture to is the Vendetta. They have identical hulls for identical costs, but one boats 120 points' worth of lascannons and the other boats 48 points of S5 dakka. One has a 12 model transport capacity, the other has a +1 against ground targets.

So I guess it comes down to a couple of questions.

1: is a 12 model transport capacity worth as much as a +1 against ground targets?
2: Can 40 S5 AP0 shots make their points back against their ideal targets as easily as 6 S9 AP-3 shots?

I guess an in-depth side by side analysis of the Vendetta and Vulture would be interesting to see.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/13 04:17:23


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 ross-128 wrote:
The thing about the twin punisher though, is that its cost is directly in line with the regular punisher. A Punisher is 20 points, a twin punisher is 40 points, exactly twice as much. Is the base Punisher underpriced too? Well it is one of the stronger options on the LRBT I guess, but I don't know if that's saying much.

Maybe the best thing to compare the Vulture to is the Vendetta. They have identical hulls for identical costs, but one boats 120 points' worth of lascannons and the other boats 48 points of S5 dakka. One has a 12 model transport capacity, the other has a +1 against ground targets.

So I guess it comes down to a couple of questions.

1: is a 12 model transport capacity worth as much as a +1 against ground targets?
2: Can 40 S5 AP0 shots make their points back against their ideal targets as easily as 6 S9 AP-3 shots?

I guess an in-depth side by side analysis of the Vendetta and Vulture would be interesting to see.

Because another part of something's point cost is the platform?

Which is why you wouldn't be okay with Devastators/Havocs getting Punishers as a Heavy Choice.


6+ = 6/36 | Reroll 1s = 7/36 | Reroll Misses = 11/36 ||||||| 5+ = 12/36 | Reroll 1s 14/36 | Reroll Misses = 20/36 ||||||| 4+ = 18/36 | Reroll 1s 21/36 | Reroll Misses = 27/36
3+ = 24/36 | Reroll 1s 28/36 | Reroll Misses = 32/36 ||||||| 2+ = 30/36 | Reroll 1s 35/36 ||||||| Highest of 2d6 = 4.47
 
   
Made in ca
Fresh-Faced New User




Daedalus81 wrote:
 ross-128 wrote:
The Vulture is 110, though presumably the 20 point difference is because of the fact that they have identical hulls, but the Valkyrie has a 12-model transport capacity, and transport capacity has a point cost now (though we don't know exactly what that cost is supposed to be).

Though the Vendetta is 110 points too, despite also having an identical hull and 12-model transport capacity. So not sure what's going on there.


Perhaps. The durability of the base Vulture isn't so much the problem as the TPGC in my mind.

I'm not certain that transport holds the value. I think it might actually be hard points. I counted one shot and non-sponson/turret weapons as secondaries. A turret usually carries a much larger weapon.



Now a Vulture is 112 with 4 hard points, but to get the TPGC it has to trade in 3 of them to get it. So, maybe it's a fair trade? Gut feeling says it's edging the line a little too much.


To add to that, most turrets are roughly twice the cost and twice the effectiveness of a similar heavy weapon, so you could think of a turret as 2 hard points.

Demolisher cannons are slightly better than 2 lascannons, both cost 40 points.
Exterminator autocannons are exactly 2 autocannons at a 5 point discount.
Executioner is nearly as effective as 2 plasma cannons, etc..

The PGC is roughly equal to 5 heavy bolters at half the cost.
Sure, you could argue that heavy bolters are not the same caliber as other heavy weapons so being 5 times as effective isn't overpowered relative to other turrets, but there's still no reason the PGC should also be half price.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

Perhaps the Punisher is undercosted, but it's taken directly from Games Workshop's costing for the cannon, not Forge World's.

So the problem is still GW.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Perhaps the Punisher is undercosted, but it's taken directly from Games Workshop's costing for the cannon, not Forge World's.

So the problem is still GW.


Except the baseline Punisher can only be taken by a Leman Russ, costing you a minimum of 160pts for 1 Punisher cannon and 1 Heavy Bolter. Compare to a baseline battle Cannon - only 2 pts more than the Punisher, getting you the rough equivalent of D6 missile launcher shots. If I remember the mathhammer analysis, while both options are considered the better ones for a Leman Russ, most mathhammer theorists maintain the Leman Russ is not the most cost-efficient/competitive slot for an AM heavy support choice - the opposite from decrying a Punisher-Russ as 'OP'.

There is nothing that says FW couldn't have raised the price of the twin Punisher - and in fact there exists several precedents where twin weapons have different points costs and aren't precisely 2x the cost of their single variant in the 'base GW' books. In addition, there are many cases where a piece of wargear or weaponry is priced differently internal to a specific army for different units - shield generators in the Tau index being a perfect example, costing 8pts normally yet 40pts for some units.

So it really remains FW's fault. Would we even have this discussion if FW had 'up-priced' a twin Punisher Gatling cannon to 60-80pts?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/13 14:29:34


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

GhostRecon wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Perhaps the Punisher is undercosted, but it's taken directly from Games Workshop's costing for the cannon, not Forge World's.

So the problem is still GW.


Except the baseline Punisher can only be taken by a Leman Russ, costing you a minimum of 160pts for 1 Punisher cannon and 1 Heavy Bolter. Compare to a baseline battle Cannon - only 2 pts more than the Punisher, getting you the rough equivalent of D6 missile launcher shots. If I remember the mathhammer analysis, while both options are considered the better ones for a Leman Russ, most mathhammer theorists maintain the Leman Russ is not the most cost-efficient/competitive slot for an AM heavy support choice - the opposite from decrying a Punisher-Russ as 'OP'.

There is nothing that says FW couldn't have raised the price of the twin Punisher - and in fact there exists several precedents where twin weapons have different points costs and aren't precisely 2x the cost of their single variant in the 'base GW' books. In addition, there are many cases where a piece of wargear or weaponry is priced differently internal to a specific army for different units - shield generators in the Tau index being a perfect example, costing 8pts normally yet 40pts for some units.

So it really remains FW's fault. Would we even have this discussion if FW had 'up-priced' a twin Punisher Gatling cannon to 60-80pts?


They could have up costed it, yes. But I don't see why they would - they simply followed the pricing guidelines set up by Games Workshop for how weapons work.

It's also worth noting that shield-generators are not weapons - in every case a weapon exists that I can think of, it's twin version is either double the cost or actually even slightly cheaper than double the cost. This means, to me, that Forge World simply followed the pricing format for every other weapon in this edition of 40k, and so I can forgive them the error. Perhaps it will be changed when something comes out that is more detailed than the basic, obviously rushed indecies - or, perhaps, we are making mountains out of molehills and it won't be a s big of a problem when everything finally falls into place.

We'll see.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Lykanthar wrote:

To add to that, most turrets are roughly twice the cost and twice the effectiveness of a similar heavy weapon, so you could think of a turret as 2 hard points.

Demolisher cannons are slightly better than 2 lascannons, both cost 40 points.
Exterminator autocannons are exactly 2 autocannons at a 5 point discount.
Executioner is nearly as effective as 2 plasma cannons, etc..

The PGC is roughly equal to 5 heavy bolters at half the cost.
Sure, you could argue that heavy bolters are not the same caliber as other heavy weapons so being 5 times as effective isn't overpowered relative to other turrets, but there's still no reason the PGC should also be half price.


Let's make an assumption that the value of a T7 3+ wound is 6.5 points (rounding up). Wait why is that cheaper than a T4 3+ marine?! Because you can take several marines per org slot.

This puts us at :



The Hammerhead and the Predator have the same hard points and are within 3 points of each other.

If we make the assumption that 1 hard point = 8 points and 1 secondary = 3.5 points this is the result.




Now this is just guess work, but to me it feels like there is something there and it's pretty close. Rounding will mess with the end result some. The Hellhound I can only guess was under costed by GW since it is restricted to short range selections (or it was a mistake).

If we apply this logic to a Battle Wagon (even though it is 4+):

Actual cost is 161. If a deffrolla isn't a true hard point it would be 160.

This cements my belief that transport is not given a point value (since you have to buy a unit to use it anyway). It also may indicate that they don't care about the armor save as much, but that could come down to rounding, too. The cost per wound could be lower and other abilities like smoke luanchers carry a value. Hard to tell either way.

A wave serpent --



Actual cost....107

This would also mean they ignore abilities like rhino repair or serpent shield, which may be why wave serpents seem undercosted.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/07/13 14:45:16


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

By that same logic, a Vulture would be....

126 or 127 points? For 14 wounds, 4 hard points, and 1 secondary? If I remember the vulture loadout correctly.

With punisher cannons though (since they prevent other hardpoint weapons being taken) it should be 110 or 111 points, right around where it is, and then plus weapons.
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




If FW was actually just applying a formula and trying to price models' bodies independently of their weapon options, then they are even more incompetent than even their harshest critics on this forum have made them out to be, and obviously there should be a strong presumption that anything in a FW index is horribly unbalanced such that probably FW models should be treated as essentially the same thing as someone's homebrew rules that they want to play with.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

Dionysodorus wrote:
If FW was actually just applying a formula and trying to price models' bodies independently of their weapon options, then they are even more incompetent than even their harshest critics on this forum have made them out to be, and obviously there should be a strong presumption that anything in a FW index is horribly unbalanced such that probably FW models should be treated as essentially the same thing as someone's homebrew rules that they want to play with.


That's exactly what GW did...

Unless you think that a 20 point Punisher cannon and 8 Pt heavy bolter are included in the base price of a Leman Russ punisher somehow, but in that case I'll just pay my 132 points for the tank's base price and bring the punisher and bolter without paying their points. After all, it's included, right?
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Dionysodorus wrote:
If FW was actually just applying a formula and trying to price models' bodies independently of their weapon options, then they are even more incompetent than even their harshest critics on this forum have made them out to be, and obviously there should be a strong presumption that anything in a FW index is horribly unbalanced such that probably FW models should be treated as essentially the same thing as someone's homebrew rules that they want to play with.


That's exactly what GW did...

Unless you think that a 20 point Punisher cannon and 8 Pt heavy bolter are included in the base price of a Leman Russ punisher somehow, but in that case I'll just pay my 132 points for the tank's base price and bring the punisher and bolter without paying their points. After all, it's included, right?

You're confusing splitting the cost of something across a body and its weapons with attempting to balance those components independently of each other. You'll note that in most cases GW seems to have tried to shift points into bodies and out of weapons (this is why boltguns cost 0, and why almost all weapons which are unique to and mandatory on single units also cost 0). In many cases they clearly gave weapons the minimum point cost possible consistent with their being available on multiple units with different options. There's some necessary imbalance that creeps in when they want to make the same-priced weapon options available across a very large number of units, but mostly they don't do a whole lot of this except for a few of the traditional widely-available heavy weapons like lascannons. You'll note that they're definitely willing to give the same guns different costs in different army lists, where they're available to very different units.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Unit1126PLL wrote:
By that same logic, a Vulture would be....

126 or 127 points? For 14 wounds, 4 hard points, and 1 secondary? If I remember the vulture loadout correctly.

With punisher cannons though (since they prevent other hardpoint weapons being taken) it should be 110 or 111 points, right around where it is, and then plus weapons.


Yea, possibly. It's close on it's base cost. It's just the TPGC that is a bit under.

Looking at the Rhino (70) vs Razorback (65) the only difference is the self repair. This makes me sure that it's 6.5 points per T7 3+ wound and that repair at 5 points (.167 * 5 turns * 6.5 = 5ish points).

That means secondaries are not values and that the Razorback is undercosted 2 hard points. It does look like I screwed up some math above so taking secondaries off the table and keeping hard points at 8:



So it still feels like seeker missiles have some attached cost to them, but other secondary weapons may not.

   
Made in us
Rough Rider with Boomstick





GhostRecon wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Perhaps the Punisher is undercosted, but it's taken directly from Games Workshop's costing for the cannon, not Forge World's.

So the problem is still GW.


Except the baseline Punisher can only be taken by a Leman Russ, costing you a minimum of 160pts for 1 Punisher cannon and 1 Heavy Bolter. Compare to a baseline battle Cannon - only 2 pts more than the Punisher, getting you the rough equivalent of D6 missile launcher shots. If I remember the mathhammer analysis, while both options are considered the better ones for a Leman Russ, most mathhammer theorists maintain the Leman Russ is not the most cost-efficient/competitive slot for an AM heavy support choice - the opposite from decrying a Punisher-Russ as 'OP'.

There is nothing that says FW couldn't have raised the price of the twin Punisher - and in fact there exists several precedents where twin weapons have different points costs and aren't precisely 2x the cost of their single variant in the 'base GW' books. In addition, there are many cases where a piece of wargear or weaponry is priced differently internal to a specific army for different units - shield generators in the Tau index being a perfect example, costing 8pts normally yet 40pts for some units.

So it really remains FW's fault. Would we even have this discussion if FW had 'up-priced' a twin Punisher Gatling cannon to 60-80pts?


Honestly, strictly speaking that's not true. The Russ isn't the only thing that can take a Punisher. Why? Because the twin Punisher isn't its own weapon anymore. It is literally two Punishers. And I'd say this isn't an extreme enough case to justify giving it a different cost on one specific model.

Still, if the Punisher itself turns out to be the problem, I suppose one possible solution would be to raise the Punisher to 30 points, and reduce the LRBT's hull to 122 points (and take 10 points off all other LRBT hull variants to match).

This would keep the LRBT Punisher in the same place, give all the other Russ variants a much-needed boost, put the Punisher's points-per-shot ratio in between a Heavy Stubber and a Heavy Bolter, and increase the cost of a twin Punisher by 20 points (to 60).

For reference, here's a comparison with some other weapons similar to the Punisher:

Punisher: S5 AP0 24" 20 shots for 20 points, 1 point per shot

Heavy Stubber: S4 AP0 36" 3 shots for 4 points, 1.3 points per shot

Heavy Bolter: S5 AP-1 36" 3 shots for 8 points, 2.6 points per shot

Taurox Punisher: S4 AP0 24" 20 shots for 18 points,, 0.9 points per shot

Storm Bolter: S4 AP0 24"/12" 2/4 shots for 2 points, 1/0.5 points per shot

Nerfed Punisher: S5 AP0 24" 20 shots for 30 points, 1.5 points per shot

Obviously I'm sure there is much discussion that can be had about just how much the differences between those weapons are worth. I think the relationship between the Heavy Stubber and the Storm Bolter might be informative when comparing the Punisher and Heavy Bolter though.

Technically raising the base Punisher to 40 would give them the exact same ratio between them (1.3:1 vs 2.6:2), but I think that would be going too far because a Heavy Bolter has -1AP and the Heavy Stubber doesn't, so the Heavy Bolter's premium (per shot) over the Punisher should be higher than the Heavy Stubber's over the Storm Bolter's. I can't say precisely how much higher the ratio should be, just that the -1AP has to be worth something.

Also, a much smaller note, that comparison suggests that maybe the Taurox Punisher should be 20 points flat instead of 18. A difference of 2 points might not really be a big deal either way though.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Dionysodorus wrote:
If FW was actually just applying a formula and trying to price models' bodies independently of their weapon options, then they are even more incompetent than even their harshest critics on this forum have made them out to be, and obviously there should be a strong presumption that anything in a FW index is horribly unbalanced such that probably FW models should be treated as essentially the same thing as someone's homebrew rules that they want to play with.


Could you elaborate more? All the of weapons are divided from the base cost aside from the aforementioned units where they are the only unit that can take said weapon.

Forgeworld kept some of that dynamic and left some of it out in places. The TGPC is undercosted, but it also consumes 3 hard points. Is that fair? I'm not certain it is, but it may not need a massive point increase either.
   
Made in fi
Courageous Space Marine Captain






Dionysodorus wrote:

You're confusing splitting the cost of something across a body and its weapons with attempting to balance those components independently of each other. You'll note that in most cases GW seems to have tried to shift points into bodies and out of weapons (this is why boltguns cost 0, and why almost all weapons which are unique to and mandatory on single units also cost 0). In many cases they clearly gave weapons the minimum point cost possible consistent with their being available on multiple units with different options. There's some necessary imbalance that creeps in when they want to make the same-priced weapon options available across a very large number of units, but mostly they don't do a whole lot of this except for a few of the traditional widely-available heavy weapons like lascannons. You'll note that they're definitely willing to give the same guns different costs in different army lists, where they're available to very different units.

Indeed. The LR turret weapons are costed based on the assumption that one tank will have only one of such weapon. You cannot just add more weapons and assume it will be balanced. I'm sure we can next expect FW model with hundred bolters which it can take for free, because single bolter costs zero points!

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

Dionysodorus wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Dionysodorus wrote:
If FW was actually just applying a formula and trying to price models' bodies independently of their weapon options, then they are even more incompetent than even their harshest critics on this forum have made them out to be, and obviously there should be a strong presumption that anything in a FW index is horribly unbalanced such that probably FW models should be treated as essentially the same thing as someone's homebrew rules that they want to play with.


That's exactly what GW did...

Unless you think that a 20 point Punisher cannon and 8 Pt heavy bolter are included in the base price of a Leman Russ punisher somehow, but in that case I'll just pay my 132 points for the tank's base price and bring the punisher and bolter without paying their points. After all, it's included, right?

You're confusing splitting the cost of something across a body and its weapons with attempting to balance those components independently of each other. You'll note that in most cases GW seems to have tried to shift points into bodies and out of weapons (this is why boltguns cost 0, and why almost all weapons which are unique to and mandatory on single units also cost 0). In many cases they clearly gave weapons the minimum point cost possible consistent with their being available on multiple units with different options. There's some necessary imbalance that creeps in when they want to make the same-priced weapon options available across a very large number of units, but mostly they don't do a whole lot of this except for a few of the traditional widely-available heavy weapons like lascannons. You'll note that they're definitely willing to give the same guns different costs in different army lists, where they're available to very different units.


I'm not sure what you're on about; perhaps I'm failing to understand your words (that happens a lot with me :( ).

From what I've seen, the only weapons that are 0 priced are ones that come on one and only one platform and only if that platform has no options to replace them. Other weapons within the same army have exactly the same cost across the board and regardless of platform; e.g. a lascannon is the same whether on a Russ or a Sentinel or a Heavy Weapons Team. A twin-linked heavy bolter is the same cost whether on a Shadowsword or a Baneblade, and is exactly twice the cost of a single heavy bolter on a Leman Russ or a Heavy Weapons team.

Using the same logic for Punisher Cannons that the AM index does for Heavy Bolters, then 1) A PGC should cost the same whether it is on a Russ or a Heavy Weapons Team (if it were an option for those) and 2) a TPGC should cost twice what a PGC does, and should cost the same whether it was on a Vulture, Russ, Baneblade, or Infantry Squad.

Both of those things are true - forge world is merely following GW's logic.
   
Made in us
Terminator with Assault Cannon





Daedalus81 wrote:
Looking at the Rhino (70) vs Razorback (65) the only difference is the self repair. This makes me sure that it's 6.5 points per T7 3+ wound and that repair at 5 points (.167 * 5 turns * 6.5 = 5ish points).

That means secondaries are not values and that the Razorback is undercosted 2 hard points. It does look like I screwed up some math above so taking secondaries off the table and keeping hard points at 8:



So it still feels like seeker missiles have some attached cost to them, but other secondary weapons may not.



The Rhino transports 4 more guys than the Razorback - I suspect that capacity is factored into the cost somehow.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

 Crimson wrote:
Dionysodorus wrote:

You're confusing splitting the cost of something across a body and its weapons with attempting to balance those components independently of each other. You'll note that in most cases GW seems to have tried to shift points into bodies and out of weapons (this is why boltguns cost 0, and why almost all weapons which are unique to and mandatory on single units also cost 0). In many cases they clearly gave weapons the minimum point cost possible consistent with their being available on multiple units with different options. There's some necessary imbalance that creeps in when they want to make the same-priced weapon options available across a very large number of units, but mostly they don't do a whole lot of this except for a few of the traditional widely-available heavy weapons like lascannons. You'll note that they're definitely willing to give the same guns different costs in different army lists, where they're available to very different units.

Indeed. The LR turret weapons are costed based on the assumption that one tank will have only one of such weapon. You cannot just add more weapons and assume it will be balanced. I'm sure we can next expect FW model with hundred bolters which it can take for free, because single bolter costs zero points!


So you're saying the weapons are priced according to their platform? Doesn't that contradict the idea that you pay for the weapon and platform separately? Shouldn't a Lascannon be priced assuming a Russ has 1, and a Heavy Weapon Squad has 3, therefore resulting in different prices for different platforms, by your logic?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/13 15:08:48


 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




Daedalus81 wrote:
Dionysodorus wrote:
If FW was actually just applying a formula and trying to price models' bodies independently of their weapon options, then they are even more incompetent than even their harshest critics on this forum have made them out to be, and obviously there should be a strong presumption that anything in a FW index is horribly unbalanced such that probably FW models should be treated as essentially the same thing as someone's homebrew rules that they want to play with.


Could you elaborate more? All the of weapons are divided from the base cost aside from the aforementioned units where they are the only unit that can take said weapon.

Forgeworld kept some of that dynamic and left some of it out in places. The TGPC is undercosted, but it also consumes 3 hard points. Is that fair? I'm not certain it is, but it may not need a massive point increase either.

I mean, it's just obviously stupid and terrible game design to try to work out how much a given body is worth on its own, and then try to work out how much some gun is worth on its own, and then get the cost for a unit by adding together the independently-derived costs for its body and guns. The actual value of a unit is simply not additive like this. In general there are diminishing returns to offense and to defense. As you increase a unit's offensive capabilities you make it relatively easier for an opponent to shut down all of that offense. Even if a Hellhound could take an unlimited number of heavy flamers, it would be very stupid to give it very many. And of course there are also synergies between different capabilities (like high movement or deep striking tends to work better with short-ranged guns).
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Using the same logic for Punisher Cannons that the AM index does for Heavy Bolters, then 1) A PGC should cost the same whether it is on a Russ or a Heavy Weapons Team (if it were an option for those) and 2) a TPGC should cost twice what a PGC does, and should cost the same whether it was on a Vulture, Russ, Baneblade, or Infantry Squad.

Both of those things are true - forge world is merely following GW's logic.


Very true. Perhaps where it becomes a bigger issue is when the Vulture gets +1 to hit for strafing and doesn't seem to pay a cost for such an ability.

Now it is a fairly short ranged weapon and it does typically have to move and be in danger to use it. It also sacrifices 2 hard points (16 points by my fuzzy math) to have it.
   
Made in fi
Courageous Space Marine Captain






 Unit1126PLL wrote:

So you're saying the weapons are priced according to their platform? Doesn't that contradict the idea that you pay for the weapon and platform separately? Shouldn't a Lascannon be priced assuming a Russ has 1, and a Heavy Weapon Squad has 3, therefore resulting in different prices for different platforms, by your logic?

Only Russes can take Russ turret weapons, thus those costs are designed to work only with them. Same is not true for heavy bolters or lascannons.

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Dionysodorus wrote:

I mean, it's just obviously stupid and terrible game design to try to work out how much a given body is worth on its own, and then try to work out how much some gun is worth on its own, and then get the cost for a unit by adding together the independently-derived costs for its body and guns. The actual value of a unit is simply not additive like this. In general there are diminishing returns to offense and to defense.


Totally disagree.

The guns are costed with consideration to who can use them (IG lascannons are 20; SM lascannons are 25), but stand on their own as to their capabilities.

And as such you are making a decision in list building. Do I deploy my heavy weapons on more durable platforms or do I get more heavy weapons, but risk losing them more quickly?
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
Dionysodorus wrote:

You're confusing splitting the cost of something across a body and its weapons with attempting to balance those components independently of each other. You'll note that in most cases GW seems to have tried to shift points into bodies and out of weapons (this is why boltguns cost 0, and why almost all weapons which are unique to and mandatory on single units also cost 0). In many cases they clearly gave weapons the minimum point cost possible consistent with their being available on multiple units with different options. There's some necessary imbalance that creeps in when they want to make the same-priced weapon options available across a very large number of units, but mostly they don't do a whole lot of this except for a few of the traditional widely-available heavy weapons like lascannons. You'll note that they're definitely willing to give the same guns different costs in different army lists, where they're available to very different units.

Indeed. The LR turret weapons are costed based on the assumption that one tank will have only one of such weapon. You cannot just add more weapons and assume it will be balanced. I'm sure we can next expect FW model with hundred bolters which it can take for free, because single bolter costs zero points!


So you're saying the weapons are priced according to their platform? Doesn't that contradict the idea that you pay for the weapon and platform separately? Shouldn't a Lascannon be priced assuming a Russ has 1, and a Heavy Weapon Squad has 3, therefore resulting in different prices for different platforms, by your logic?

They've done the costs like this because they think it makes it easier to adjust prices later, or something like that. There's a cost to this, though, which is that the costs they have aren't appropriate for all units, even though they're obviously restricting which units can take which options to some extent already. But yes, probably lascannons should be priced differently for heavy weapon squads than for Russes, and heavy weapon teams in infantry squads should obviously be paying a different price than heavy weapon teams in heavy weapon squads. I mean, there's a reason that people pretty much automatically put lascannons in their infantry squads and then put cheaper ones in their heavy weapon squads with maybe one lascannon in a squad.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/13 15:18:32


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

Daedalus81 wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Using the same logic for Punisher Cannons that the AM index does for Heavy Bolters, then 1) A PGC should cost the same whether it is on a Russ or a Heavy Weapons Team (if it were an option for those) and 2) a TPGC should cost twice what a PGC does, and should cost the same whether it was on a Vulture, Russ, Baneblade, or Infantry Squad.

Both of those things are true - forge world is merely following GW's logic.


Very true. Perhaps where it becomes a bigger issue is when the Vulture gets +1 to hit for strafing and doesn't seem to pay a cost for such an ability.

Now it is a fairly short ranged weapon and it does typically have to move and be in danger to use it. It also sacrifices 2 hard points (16 points by my fuzzy math) to have it.


Yes, but Leman Russ tank commanders have +1 to hit and don't pay extra for the weapons. They do on their base hull, so again, I can see that the Vulture should be higher priced at its base, though it's worth noting that the LRBT tank commanders may actually be paying for their ability to give orders, as there is no indication the damage increase from BS3+ went into the points paid - it is a far higher damage output increase than it pays for, according to math in the Astra Militarum thread.

Crimson wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:

So you're saying the weapons are priced according to their platform? Doesn't that contradict the idea that you pay for the weapon and platform separately? Shouldn't a Lascannon be priced assuming a Russ has 1, and a Heavy Weapon Squad has 3, therefore resulting in different prices for different platforms, by your logic?

Only Russes can take Russ turret weapons, thus those costs are designed to work only with them. Same is not true for heavy bolters or lascannons.


That's true, but part of the reason to make it a separate cost is future-proofing, right? So shouldn't a Punisher cannon be priced correctly for all platforms? Surely if they can do it with Lascannons they can do it with Punisher Cannons, if they're going to price them independently. How do we know they didn't future-proof in this way, and furthermore, why wouldn't they? It seems like the obvious reason to make the cost separate.

If they priced Leman Russ weapons the way you suggest, it'd probably look more like the cheapest weapon is 0 points (since it can only be taken by a Russ, and therefore should be included in the base cost) and the other weapons should all be slightly more expensive (perhaps exactly as many points more expensive as they are now, with the cheapest weapon becoming the 0 value.).
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




Daedalus81 wrote:
Dionysodorus wrote:

I mean, it's just obviously stupid and terrible game design to try to work out how much a given body is worth on its own, and then try to work out how much some gun is worth on its own, and then get the cost for a unit by adding together the independently-derived costs for its body and guns. The actual value of a unit is simply not additive like this. In general there are diminishing returns to offense and to defense.


Totally disagree.

The guns are costed with consideration to who can use them (IG lascannons are 20; SM lascannons are 25), but stand on their own as to their capabilities.

And as such you are making a decision in list building. Do I deploy my heavy weapons on more durable platforms or do I get more heavy weapons, but risk losing them more quickly?

I'm sorry but this is simply innumerate. The thing you want -- having to make decisions in list building -- is not helped by using a single cost for all weapons across all platforms. I mean, why not just try to come up with costs for the weapons on each platform that come as close as possible to equalizing their appeal on that particular platform? There's absolutely no reason to think that single costs for weapons is the best way, or even a particularly good way, to force interesting decisions about whether you want lots of weapons on fragile platforms or fewer weapons on durable platforms.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: