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.

 vipoid wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Plasma guns should cost 13 points, like the SM ones.

I think 10pts would be more reasonable. Scions shouldn't be paying SM weapon prices when they're significantly less durable than said SMs.

Also, I'd argue that 7pts is about right for regular guardsmen (given that they're even less durable and only have BS4+).

I disagree with your disagreement

The person holding the weapon shouldn't affect the weapon's cost.

Doing so, especially when weapon costs have become blanket default just creates issues in where if a army has multiple models of varying skill or toughness carrying the same weapon, then those models have can vastly different efficiencies with the weapon.

1 cost for a weapon, then price the model based around their ability and/or inability.

 Talamare wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Plasma guns should cost 13 points, like the SM ones.

I think 10pts would be more reasonable. Scions shouldn't be paying SM weapon prices when they're significantly less durable than said SMs.

Also, I'd argue that 7pts is about right for regular guardsmen (given that they're even less durable and only have BS4+).

I disagree with your disagreement

The person holding the weapon shouldn't affect the weapon's cost.

Doing so, especially when weapon costs have become blanket default just creates issues in where if a army has multiple models of varying skill or toughness carrying the same weapon, then those models have can vastly different efficiencies with the weapon.

1 cost for a weapon, then price the model based around their ability and/or inability.

What is your thought on Strength based melee weapons like Power Fists - currently STR 3 models pay more than (Some/all?)) Space Marines using their STR 4 ones? Surely that can;t be right?

 Mr Morden wrote:
What is your thought on Strength based melee weapons like Power Fists - currently STR 3 models pay more than (Some/all?)) Space Marines using their STR 4 ones? Surely that can;t be right?

1 cost for a weapon

Weapon costs represent the weapon

Adjust the cost of the model for being stronger, not the cost of the weapon for a model being weaker.

You'd end up with a whole lot of overcosted models that are stuck with basic wargear, then.

 Talamare wrote:
I disagree with your disagreement

That's okay, I disagree with your disagreeing with my disagreement.

 Talamare wrote:

The person holding the weapon shouldn't affect the weapon's cost.

Doing so, especially when weapon costs have become blanket default just creates issues in where if a army has multiple models of varying skill or toughness carrying the same weapon, then those models have can vastly different efficiencies with the weapon.

1 cost for a weapon, then price the model based around their ability and/or inability.

The reason that doesn't work is that models differ in cost for a reason. If you force cheap models to pay the same price for their weapons as more elite/expensive models, then those cheap models quickly become far too expensive to justify their statlines. Because their expensive weapons quickly eclipse the initial differences in cost. So you end up with models that have vastly worse statlines than elite models but cost just marginally less.

It's even worse with melee weapons.

Firefox1 wrote:
Concering the GL and Flamer, not every weapon is as useful for every unit.

The GL isn't really useful for any unit. It loses out to the basic lasgun on FRFSRF.

 vipoid wrote:

 Talamare wrote:
I disagree with your disagreement

That's okay, I disagree with your disagreeing with my disagreement.

 Talamare wrote:

The person holding the weapon shouldn't affect the weapon's cost.

Doing so, especially when weapon costs have become blanket default just creates issues in where if a army has multiple models of varying skill or toughness carrying the same weapon, then those models have can vastly different efficiencies with the weapon.

1 cost for a weapon, then price the model based around their ability and/or inability.

The reason that doesn't work is that models differ in cost for a reason. If you force cheap models to pay the same price for their weapons as more elite/expensive models, then those cheap models quickly become far too expensive to justify their statlines. Because their expensive weapons quickly eclipse the initial differences in cost. So you end up with models that have vastly worse statlines than elite models but cost just marginally less.

It's even worse with melee weapons.

Your point is valid with melle weapons - with shooting weapons it is not. Shooting weapons scale off 1 stat. BS. BS should determine the cost of a weapon - not what army you are in.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Talamare wrote:
I disagree with your disagreement

That's okay, I disagree with your disagreeing with my disagreement.

 Talamare wrote:

The person holding the weapon shouldn't affect the weapon's cost.

Doing so, especially when weapon costs have become blanket default just creates issues in where if a army has multiple models of varying skill or toughness carrying the same weapon, then those models have can vastly different efficiencies with the weapon.

1 cost for a weapon, then price the model based around their ability and/or inability.

It's even worse with melee weapons.

Your point is valid with melle weapons - with shooting weapons it is not. Shooting weapons scale off 1 stat. BS. BS should determine the cost of a weapon - not what army you are in.

That's not true at all. Durability affects shooting power, because you can't shoot if you're dead.

A T4 3+ model with a plasma gun will get to shoot for more turns than a T3 5+ model with a plasma gun, and therefore inflict more shooting damage with exactly the same weapon.
The reason that doesn't work is that models differ in cost for a reason. If you force cheap models to pay the same price for their weapons as more elite/expensive models, then those cheap models quickly become far too expensive to justify their statlines. Because their expensive weapons quickly eclipse the initial differences in cost. So you end up with models that have vastly worse statlines than elite models but cost just marginally less.

 vipoid wrote:

 Talamare wrote:

The person holding the weapon shouldn't affect the weapon's cost.

Doing so, especially when weapon costs have become blanket default just creates issues in where if a army has multiple models of varying skill or toughness carrying the same weapon, then those models have can vastly different efficiencies with the weapon.

1 cost for a weapon, then price the model based around their ability and/or inability.

The reason that doesn't work is that models differ in cost for a reason. If you force cheap models to pay the same price for their weapons as more elite/expensive models, then those cheap models quickly become far too expensive to justify their statlines. Because their expensive weapons quickly eclipse the initial differences in cost. So you end up with models that have vastly worse statlines than elite models but cost just marginally less.

It's even worse with melee weapons.

Not really, and we can use the classic 'sleep with me for $1mil joke"

Would a special weapon be OP on a Standard Space Marine if that Space Marine costed 1000 points per model, and the weapon costed 15? No, of course not
Would a special weapon be OP on a Standard Guardsman that can deep strike was BS+2 and costed 1 point per model, and the weapon costed 15? Yes, of course it would be

Now that we agree that you can have circumstances in which exact same costs on a Guardsman Toughness could be OP, and a Space Marine Toughness could be UP that means that there will exist a value for both models in which it will be roughly balanced despite the cost of the weapon remaining static.

 Talamare wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Talamare wrote:

The person holding the weapon shouldn't affect the weapon's cost.

Doing so, especially when weapon costs have become blanket default just creates issues in where if a army has multiple models of varying skill or toughness carrying the same weapon, then those models have can vastly different efficiencies with the weapon.

1 cost for a weapon, then price the model based around their ability and/or inability.

The reason that doesn't work is that models differ in cost for a reason. If you force cheap models to pay the same price for their weapons as more elite/expensive models, then those cheap models quickly become far too expensive to justify their statlines. Because their expensive weapons quickly eclipse the initial differences in cost. So you end up with models that have vastly worse statlines than elite models but cost just marginally less.

It's even worse with melee weapons.

Not really, and we can use the classic 'sleep with me for $1mil joke"

Would a special weapon be OP on a Standard Space Marine if that Space Marine costed 1000 points per model, and the weapon costed 15? No, of course not
Would a special weapon be OP on a Standard Guardsman that can deep strike was BS+2 and costed 1 point per model, and the weapon costed 15? Yes, of course it would be

Now that we agree that you can have circumstances in which exact same costs on a Guardsman Toughness could be OP, and a Space Marine Toughness could be UP that means that there will exist a value for both models in which it will be roughly balanced despite the cost of the weapon remaining static.

You're hyperbole is not valid, because the weapon costs more than both models, not less than one but more than the other. A more valid comparison would be:

"Is a plasma gun being 1000 points better for a Space Marine or better for a Guardsman with 2+ BS" - obviously it's better on the space marine, because you're spending so much on the weapon that the model its on fades into what is essentially the margin of error of the cost of the plasma gun - and the space marine has better durability and will be able to fire it more times.

To take a less hyperbolic example:

If plasma were 25 points, you'd essentially never see it on IG. Because you could buy 6 more Imperial Guardsmen and have points to spare. You would, I'd bet, still see it on Space Marines.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Talamare wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Talamare wrote:

The person holding the weapon shouldn't affect the weapon's cost.

Doing so, especially when weapon costs have become blanket default just creates issues in where if a army has multiple models of varying skill or toughness carrying the same weapon, then those models have can vastly different efficiencies with the weapon.

1 cost for a weapon, then price the model based around their ability and/or inability.

The reason that doesn't work is that models differ in cost for a reason. If you force cheap models to pay the same price for their weapons as more elite/expensive models, then those cheap models quickly become far too expensive to justify their statlines. Because their expensive weapons quickly eclipse the initial differences in cost. So you end up with models that have vastly worse statlines than elite models but cost just marginally less.

It's even worse with melee weapons.

Not really, and we can use the classic 'sleep with me for $1mil joke"

Would a special weapon be OP on a Standard Space Marine if that Space Marine costed 1000 points per model, and the weapon costed 15? No, of course not
Would a special weapon be OP on a Standard Guardsman that can deep strike was BS+2 and costed 1 point per model, and the weapon costed 15? Yes, of course it would be

Now that we agree that you can have circumstances in which exact same costs on a Guardsman Toughness could be OP, and a Space Marine Toughness could be UP that means that there will exist a value for both models in which it will be roughly balanced despite the cost of the weapon remaining static.

You're hyperbole is not valid, because the weapon costs more than both models, not less than one but more than the other. A more valid comparison would be:

"Is a plasma gun being 1000 points better for a Space Marine or better for a Guardsman with 2+ BS" - obviously it's better on the space marine, because you're spending so much on the weapon that the model its on fades into what is essentially the margin of error of the cost of the plasma gun - and the space marine has better durability and will be able to fire it more times.

To take a less hyperbolic example:

If plasma were 25 points, you'd essentially never see it on IG. Because you could buy 6 more Imperial Guardsmen and have points to spare. You would, I'd bet, still see it on Space Marines.

Sigh, my example wasn't hyperbole. Hyperbole means that you aren't suppose to the exaggerated value seriously.
My example was to establish that a maximum exists. In which a model can be OP or UP based on a model's cost, but weapon cost remaining static.

Your counter example proved that you can make a weapon garbage for everyone by making it too expensive. At 1000 points it wouldn't matter if it said "This model is immortal and always hits.", it would still be a garbage weapon. (Altho if it also said "this model may shoot an infinite number of times per turn... but now we are getting to problems that it's the model that's broken, not inherently the weapon. Since we are assuming the weapon can be used on several different models.")
Which is something that's kinda of pointless to prove.

My stance stands, as does my example. There is a reasonable static cost for the weapon and you can balance the models around it based on the model's toughness, accuracy, and various abilities.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Talamare wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Talamare wrote:

The person holding the weapon shouldn't affect the weapon's cost.

Doing so, especially when weapon costs have become blanket default just creates issues in where if a army has multiple models of varying skill or toughness carrying the same weapon, then those models have can vastly different efficiencies with the weapon.

1 cost for a weapon, then price the model based around their ability and/or inability.

The reason that doesn't work is that models differ in cost for a reason. If you force cheap models to pay the same price for their weapons as more elite/expensive models, then those cheap models quickly become far too expensive to justify their statlines. Because their expensive weapons quickly eclipse the initial differences in cost. So you end up with models that have vastly worse statlines than elite models but cost just marginally less.

It's even worse with melee weapons.

Not really, and we can use the classic 'sleep with me for $1mil joke"

Would a special weapon be OP on a Standard Space Marine if that Space Marine costed 1000 points per model, and the weapon costed 15? No, of course not
Would a special weapon be OP on a Standard Guardsman that can deep strike was BS+2 and costed 1 point per model, and the weapon costed 15? Yes, of course it would be

Now that we agree that you can have circumstances in which exact same costs on a Guardsman Toughness could be OP, and a Space Marine Toughness could be UP that means that there will exist a value for both models in which it will be roughly balanced despite the cost of the weapon remaining static.

You're hyperbole is not valid, because the weapon costs more than both models, not less than one but more than the other. A more valid comparison would be:

"Is a plasma gun being 1000 points better for a Space Marine or better for a Guardsman with 2+ BS" - obviously it's better on the space marine, because you're spending so much on the weapon that the model its on fades into what is essentially the margin of error of the cost of the plasma gun - and the space marine has better durability and will be able to fire it more times.

To take a less hyperbolic example:

If plasma were 25 points, you'd essentially never see it on IG. Because you could buy 6 more Imperial Guardsmen and have points to spare. You would, I'd bet, still see it on Space Marines.

Your hyperbole is not valid because it alters the meaning of his statement, the point he was referring to, in favor of a different point you're attempting to show. He stated, and showed, how it's entirely possible for there to exist a point at which costs balance out despite models being different in stats and weapons being the same cost universally. Meanwhile, YOUR hyperbole attempts to prove that with a sufficient enough cost, some weapons aren't worth taking on their platforms (looking at you mister chainfist).

If you're going to invalidate something, argue from the same perspective.

That plasma gun will last far longer in a guard blob due to the cheap ablative wounds (3.3 per marine cost) versus the cost of maintaining a marine horde to throwaway to random plasma fire. Yet you made it seem like the guard's stats will mean he's dropping dead the first time he gets shot and losing all the points he spent on his precious special weapon. Not in this edition.

Also, never try to tell me that the platform price is irrelevant if the gun is price high. If the gun cost 1000 pts and I had a 1 pt model I can put it on or a 100 pt model I can put it on, I would still care about the difference in points. That's an extra Rhino.

Here is a question, then:

Is a plasma gun equally valuable on a:

WS - BS 2+ S1 T1 W1 LD1 Sv -

model as it is on a

WS 2+ BS 3+ S50 T50 W60 LD100 Sv 2+/3++/4+++

in a vacuum?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Here is a question, then:

Is a plasma gun equally valuable on a:

WS - BS 2+ S1 T1 W1 LD1 Sv -

model as it is on a

WS 2+ BS 3+ S50 T50 W60 LD100 Sv 2+/3++/4+++

in a vacuum?

Say the Plasma Gun cost, idk 15 on both...

The first would cost, maybe 3~6 points (hard to gauge exactly, I know T1 is terrible, but it's BS2!)

The second would cost, maybe 3,000 points?
At that point tho, you kinda of made a melee monster, you did say it was S50

Edit, I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to prove with this example btw

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

You're hyperbole is not valid, because the weapon costs more than both models, not less than one but more than the other. A more valid comparison would be:

"Is a plasma gun being 1000 points better for a Space Marine or better for a Guardsman with 2+ BS" - obviously it's better on the space marine, because you're spending so much on the weapon that the model its on fades into what is essentially the margin of error of the cost of the plasma gun - and the space marine has better durability and will be able to fire it more times.

To take a less hyperbolic example:

If plasma were 25 points, you'd essentially never see it on IG. Because you could buy 6 more Imperial Guardsmen and have points to spare. You would, I'd bet, still see it on Space Marines.

You rarely buy plasma for individual models, and when you do they're going to be characters where their durability is not just about their stats. Typically you buy plasma for units. Space Marines with plasma are not notably more durable than Guardsmen with plasma -- typically, to kill a Space Marine with a plasma gun, you have to kill 4 or 5 Space Marines, whereas to kill a Guardsman with a plasma gun you have to kill 8 to 10 Guardsmen. You don't just get to shoot the model that has the plasma gun, and it's downright bizarre to talk about point costs without considering that.

There are advantages to being able to hide special weapons in squads -- the squad's firepower degrades relatively slowly with casualties, because you can remove cheaper ablative wounds before having to remove the special weapon. This is why you're a lot more likely to put a lascannon team in an infantry squad than in a heavy weapon squad. Edit: This is a problem that Eldar have. You simply can't play most Eldar units without giving them transports because all their models come with special weapons, and so if you deploy them on the table you're going to start losing lots of points very quickly.

The thing with Scion/Elysian Command Squads is that they're guaranteed to shoot first. Nobody's taking regular Guard Command Squads, giving them all plasma guns, and deploying them on the table. That'd be dumb -- they'd just get shot. But drop squads will shoot first, can make back all or almost all of their cost in damage in one volley, and can often shoot exactly what you want them to shoot. And so they don't care very much about ablative wounds -- unlimited-by-officers Scion Command Squads would be overpowered even if they were T1 7+. Durability is not that important for the unit. It's nice, and sometimes you can keep some of them alive for the next turn, but this is not something you're counting on. Likewise it would really not be a huge buff to them to make them T4 3+. Like, at what point cost do you actually start to prefer a 64 point Scion Command Squad to a hypothetical 4-MEQ plasma drop squad? The Marines probably don't need to cost that much more than the Scions to be a worse choice for most armies. Personally, I think Elysian Command Squads are a lot better than Scion Command Squads, just because they're cheaper. You save 8 points on the squad and 10 points on the officer, and you end up getting plasma shots for basically the same price as you used to with 1 Tempestor Prime for every 2 squads. Of course, you're giving up a 4+ save to do it, but that seems like a no-brainer.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Talamare wrote:
I disagree with your disagreement

That's okay, I disagree with your disagreeing with my disagreement.

 Talamare wrote:

The person holding the weapon shouldn't affect the weapon's cost.

Doing so, especially when weapon costs have become blanket default just creates issues in where if a army has multiple models of varying skill or toughness carrying the same weapon, then those models have can vastly different efficiencies with the weapon.

1 cost for a weapon, then price the model based around their ability and/or inability.

It's even worse with melee weapons.

Your point is valid with melle weapons - with shooting weapons it is not. Shooting weapons scale off 1 stat. BS. BS should determine the cost of a weapon - not what army you are in.

That's not true at all. Durability affects shooting power, because you can't shoot if you're dead.

A T4 3+ model with a plasma gun will get to shoot for more turns than a T3 5+ model with a plasma gun, and therefore inflict more shooting damage with exactly the same weapon.
The reason that doesn't work is that models differ in cost for a reason. If you force cheap models to pay the same price for their weapons as more elite/expensive models, then those cheap models quickly become far too expensive to justify their statlines. Because their expensive weapons quickly eclipse the initial differences in cost. So you end up with models that have vastly worse statlines than elite models but cost just marginally less.

Durability should be covered in the models base cost. It should not affect weapon costs.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Here is a question, then:

Is a plasma gun equally valuable on a:

WS - BS 2+ S1 T1 W1 LD1 Sv -

model as it is on a

WS 2+ BS 3+ S50 T50 W60 LD100 Sv 2+/3++/4+++

in a vacuum?

I'd actually say the plasma gun is worse on such a stat heavy model given that it will be ignored. Either the model is a titan and has better weapon choices or the model is spending a fortune in points on being an "invincible plasma gun". That's SUCH a waste of points that the gun cost is irrelevant because the MODEL is overpriced for the gun it's using. With a model with those stats, it would carry a huge point cost. With such a huge point cost, it makes up a huge portion of your army. With such a huge portion of your army being devoted to a single model, it BETTER have something better than a plasma gun.

But if you're asking if a Warlord Titan can take 15 pt plasma gun upgrades as knee sponsons? He's more than welcome to. It's a waste of points on such a model.

Likewise, I already argued the weakling side. Yes, it's OP to have cheap guns on cheap models when they do the same thing.

 Arkaine wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
You can't compare the durability of a model to the durability of a list and then use the latter to dictate the price of the former.

Likewise though, do we really want models with half-cost plasma running about when they're mildly less durable than a standard marine? 3+ save isn't the be-all when AP is being hurled about, especially that very same plasma, and everyone dies equally on a 1 (or more often too).
Let's say I have a model that dies to a warm summer's breeze. It has no save whatsoever, can't move at all, has a Toughness of 1, and isn't a character. But I can pay 5 pts to give it a Lascannon.
Oh and this is before considering that this edition we get to choose which model in a unit dies. So let me just bring my mostly plasma squad with a few throwaway extra wounds.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Durability should be covered in the models base cost. It should not affect weapon costs.

This I fundamentally agree with.

However, it's not, in GW's current rules-set (or it is and they're just bad and inconsistent, which is possible).

Blackie wrote:

Spoiler:

The point with that 1-1 trade is that a unit that is meant to be a sucide squad kills a unit that shouldn't be dead in turn 1 in the opponent's mind. With several scions command squads the AM can cripple the most powerful threats only sacrifying units that have that precise role. Scions kill the vehicles and the anti infantry AM weapons kill the crew inside. Without plasma scions that anti infantry shooting could be wasted. So this is not really a trade of 1 and 1.

And all the anti-infantry firepower taken by the scions saves several wounds to the semi-immortal super scary blob of conscripts which can become a real problem if it's left untouched by turn 2. They kill some valuable units and, in the subsequent turn, soak the firepower that can cripple one of more units that you want to be effective at full numbers. Unless that AM list faces a green tide ork army with only boyz and characters that can't be targeted by scions, or something similar, that tactics is way OP.

Plasma guns should cost 13 points, like the SM ones. And scions should probably be limited to a single command squad and two regular squads unless you go full scions.

1. SCS are not suicide squads by definition it´s the weapon options they have that make them go close the enemy and the enemy will of course see them as the easy targets they are.

2. As i have shown that a SCS with Prime are very unlikely to kill a rhino-chassis thus unable to reveal infantry for other friendly units. You would need a fifth SCS model so 5 SCS with 5 Primes would kill 4 razorbacks. Then they will die -> AM losing 545 vs. 400 SM. Bad deal for AM.

3. You´re speaking of turn 1 deep striking and direkt support by conscript blobs. That means you have set up or moved too far at the front so that they can reach you. In case you moved to close them, you will likely have delivered around of fire against them. Well sorry you know the list of the enemy at least just prior to deployment. You do know what is coming and can setup your units in an appropriate way.

4. As every army has to setup at least half of their units on the board, they can only hurl around half of their army as SCS+Prime at your feet. And thus around 1000 points of "first strikers" face your full 2000 points army. As you are usually going first against a 30+ units army, you have even the first turn to screen your most expensive units. And yes you will suffering damage and losing units but the dropped units will easily get wiped meaning the AM will have around 1000 points remaining and you around 1200. Of course with a good screening technique that will shift in your favor. If you spread your army, of course the SCS can pick the most juicy targets and the AM will be favored.


Concerning weapon costs i would really prefer a way that make a weapon cost for everyone the same. And that Space Marine for example and get more out of it, should be reflected in the model costs.
But i see that this would need a whole new system and still has a flaw. Weapon cost and model cost would be fixed and thus won´t scale appropriate.

I see that a scion hits better than the guardsman but i won´t live longer. Over the course of the game guardsmen get more shots out of it as not all of them will be killed in one round. So i can´t see a reason for any points increase.

Btw. no one has complained about AM Veterans. But they can bring quite a very similar firepower with excess bodies for the same points though not with a deep strike.

So what i see here is less a problem with the scions but with the easily available "deep striking". Which seems to me like a call for price increase for deep strikers and/or a special rule limiting deep strikes per turn.
(Make deep strike happening at the very end of the player turn, would tone it very much down.)
At least we have the rule that at least half of the units have to be setup. (Yes i´m also not a fan of deep striking)
But that seems to be part of the meta and most armies have half way cheap units for screening.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Here is a question, then:

Is a plasma gun equally valuable on a:

WS - BS 2+ S1 T1 W1 LD1 Sv -

model as it is on a

WS 2+ BS 3+ S50 T50 W60 LD100 Sv 2+/3++/4+++

in a vacuum?

Weapons can literally be costed by their ability to remove wounds in a turn. BS is the stat that determines that. Nothing else should matter when costing weapons.

If you want to argue about durability - the marine costs 13 points compared to your - 6-8 point scion? The durability factor is already payed for. Against each other if they both fire simultaneously - Assuming the scion overcharges...why wouldn't he? He's going to die anyways right? The Marine has a chance at a 6+ save....and the guardsmen kills himself on a 1. Sounds like about a 5 point difference at max to me between the two models. Except in this comparison the marine is actually getting to shoot - Realistically the scion always shoots first.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Here is a question, then:

Is a plasma gun equally valuable on a:

WS - BS 2+ S1 T1 W1 LD1 Sv -

model as it is on a

WS 2+ BS 3+ S50 T50 W60 LD100 Sv 2+/3++/4+++

in a vacuum?

Weapons can literally be costed by their ability to remove wounds in a turn. BS is the stat that determines that. Nothing else should matter when costing weapons.

If you want to argue about durability - the marine costs 13 points compared to your - 6-8 point scion? The durability factor is already payed for. Against each other if they both fire simultaneously - Assuming the scion overcharges...why wouldn't he? He's going to die anyways right? The Marine has a chance at a 6+ save....and the guardsmen kills himself on a 1. Sounds like about a 5 point difference at max to me between the two models. Except in this comparison the marine is actually getting to shoot - Realistically the scion always shoots first.

The scion shoots first because of deep strike, which is a tactical "choice" on the guard player (he didn't have a stroke and deploy the models on the table during deployment) and also has significant counterplay (reference: Marines being unable to deep-strike then charge IG tanks because of the bubble-wrap).

Otherwise, no, there's no guarantee that the scion shoots first. In fact, based on purely number-of-drops, the scion should almost always shoot second.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Durability should be covered in the models base cost. It should not affect weapon costs.

This really only works if all of a model's loadouts are going to be comparable in cost. It is a terrible idea if models are going to be able to choose from a wide variety of weapon options such that the final result can be either only a little shooty or very, very shooty.

Like, consider one of these FW artillery platforms which are immobile and can't be tied up in CC. I guess let's also say that they can't even hold objectives. So they're basically worthless except for their ability to shoot things. They're not characters and must deploy on the table, so can be shot at just fine, and you're not expecting to be able to hide them behind terrain or anything. The durability of the platform will determine how much you value its various weapon options. Suppose it can take a mortar or an Earthshaker cannon. I don't know what you want to price an Earthshaker at -- probably at least 40 points since it's at least as good as two lascannons. The mortar is still 5 points, just like on a HWT. I believe that, given a defensive statline, you will have a very hard time setting a price for the platform such that both of those weapon options seem viable. In general, if the platform is cheap and fragile, like a Heavy Weapon Team, the mortar is going to be an obviously better buy. If the platform is expensive and durable, like a Basilisk, the Earthshaker will be an obviously better buy. There's probably somewhere in the middle where this more-or-less works out, but that's going to be a special case.

I mean, sure, you can have aesthetic reasons for believing that it's better if we try to price weapons independently of the models/units that can take them, and that models' prices shouldn't reflect the weapons they can take. But this will in general produce imbalances that you can't address within the constraints of your system.

 vipoid wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

SM plasma equivalent can't deep strike and can't be spammed in the same numbers, in terms of effectiveness scions' plasma guns should cost more than SM ones.

So what you really want is for Scions to be unusable. Gotcha.

If scions command squads cost 30/40% more than the current price, including wargear, I'd take them anyway. They would be the most powerful unit in more than half the armies available even if a single squad was priced around 100 points.

 vipoid wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

Better range? Since you can deep strike plasma guns have better range. Damage 3 is nice but even with 20 tankbustas you won't get the same damage as the equivalent in terms of points of scions command squads. Killing the users? The standard profile of plasma guns doesn't kill you anymore, against T5-6 S7-8 are the same, and if you have access to re-rolls of 1s you can even overcharge. And suicide squads can even afford to lose some models risking the overcharge, they're going to die next turn anyway, losing one model in a unit of four dudes that is dead next turn is irrelevant.

You seem desperate to use the weakest codex as a point of comparison. Why? Are you that desperate that IG be nerfed into the ground for the third edition running?

Just because they're one of my armies actually. I wouldn't like the IG to be nerfed at the point they become the weakest army in the game, I'm fine with the current conscripts+commissar combo for example, but that cheap deep striking plasma spam (with re-rolling ones, which let them overcharge all the time, but thanks to their role they would do it anyway) is too broken.

Anything that is an auto-include should be toned down. The goal should be having armies with different tools and styles but similar effectiveness. Things like scions command squads, stormravens, guilliman, brimstones... should be toned down. AM lists would be strong and top tier even if, with plasma getting more expensive as they deserve to be, players were forced to field one lesser scions command squad.

I would argue the other way round. Make disliked units more attractive.

Firefox1 wrote:


1. SCS are not suicide squads by definition it´s the weapon options they have that make them go close the enemy and the enemy will of course see them as the easy targets they are.

How can a unit of 4 deepstriking dudes with T3 1W and 4+ save not be considered as a suicide squad?

Firefox1 wrote:


2. As i have shown that a SCS with Prime are very unlikely to kill a rhino-chassis thus unable to reveal infantry for other friendly units. You would need a fifth SCS model so 5 SCS with 5 Primes would kill 4 razorbacks. Then they will die -> AM losing 545 vs. 400 SM. Bad deal for AM.

I would be fine with a single command squad and a prime. Problem is you may deep strike several of them without paying more than 400 points in total. Enough to cut down more than a vehicle or something very important for the opponent. Some things can be screwed even if they have some wounds left with the new damage table.

Firefox1 wrote:


3. You´re speaking of turn 1 deep striking and direkt support by conscript blobs. That means you have set up or moved too far at the front so that they can reach you. In case you moved to close them, you will likely have delivered around of fire against them. Well sorry you know the list of the enemy at least just prior to deployment. You do know what is coming and can setup your units in an appropriate way.

Doesn't the AM have other anti-infantries tools rather than conscripts?

Firefox1 wrote:


Btw. no one has complained about AM Veterans. But they can bring quite a very similar firepower with excess bodies for the same points though not with a deep strike.

So what i see here is less a problem with the scions but with the easily available "deep striking". Which seems to me like a call for price increase for deep strikers and/or a special rule limiting deep strikes per turn.
(Make deep strike happening at the very end of the player turn, would tone it very much down.)
At least we have the rule that at least half of the units have to be setup. (Yes i´m also not a fan of deep striking)
But that seems to be part of the meta and most armies have half way cheap units for screening.

Scions problem is the combination of their cheap plasma, the possiblity of equipping several models in a single unit with that weapon and the deep strike ability. Combine it with other powerful units the army have and the list becomes overpowered. You can kill veterans' vehicle and then the crew inside before they strike but even if you don't that unit must pay for the transport while scions don't. If they were forced to arrive by a drop pod equivalent or they didn't have the deep strike ability their 7 points plasma guns would be fine.

 Xenomancers wrote:


If you want to argue about durability - the marine costs 13 points compared to your - 6-8 point scion?

Scions are 9 pts without any gear.

 Blackie wrote:

How can a unit of 4 deepstriking dudes with T3 1W and 4+ save not be considered as a suicide squad?

I would be fine with a single command squad and a prime. Problem is you may deep strike several of them without paying more than 400 points in total. Enough to cut down more than a vehicle or something very important for the opponent. Some things can be screwed even if they have some wounds left with the new damage table.

You can get more out of them if you place them tactically, e. g. on a flank or lonely units. Basically not dropping them on turn 1 in the face of the enemy. Although depends on his setup.
Yes you have to adapt your setup on a deep strike heavy list.
E. g. imagine a Space Marine army. As he know your army even he could setup his army in a way that only 4 full tacs or scouts are available as targets for a SCS alpha strike. Orks and Tyranids with their cheap units would have it even easier to deny an effective Alpha strike.
So it doesn´t matter if the AM player has 3 or 8 SCS drops, none of them can reach centurions/devastors or other high-points models.

Yes it forces you to move your army in another way as you might have wanted to. But if you push at his deployed units, he will have to act, otherwise he will loose that units despite being guarded by conscript blobs.

 Blackie wrote:

Doesn't the AM have other anti-infantries tools rather than conscripts?

Of course they do. I used the conscripts because you did. A heavy weapon team with heavy bolters can do some damage but are also as easily killed as SCS. And then units with a high rate of fire are lacking long range.
And if the list is drop-heavy then less points remain for other things.

So in short dropping SCS in front of you, cracking the transports open and have anti-infantry units in range of the passengers is very unlikely.
For that the opponent of the AM must have deployed on the front; if the AM went first
or must have lost his flank guarding units and your firepower failed to reduce the deployed AM-units; if the AM drop happens at turn 2+.

 Blackie wrote:

Scions problem is the combination of their cheap plasma, the possiblity of equipping several models in a single unit with that weapon and the deep strike ability. Combine it with other powerful units the army have and the list becomes overpowered. You can kill veterans' vehicle and then the crew inside before they strike but even if you don't that unit must pay for the transport while scions don't. If they were forced to arrive by a drop pod equivalent or they didn't have the deep strike ability their 7 points plasma guns would be fine.

So it still comes down to the deep strike. But there are so many units with the ability to deep strike, that i´m convinced GW did that intentionally and are aware of what that means.