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.

If we could take as given that the existing Marine spoilers are accurate (10% to 20% point drop, equipment dropping to Guard prices), there are still some things that I have on my wish-list:

1) There are a number of Marine weapon systems that do not appear in the Guard codex, I sincerely hope those don't get overlooked.

2) Fingers very much crossed that Centurions are closer to the 20% end of the scale.

3) Neither of the variant gun upgrades for Intercessors and Hellblasters feel like they should cost more than the basic Rapid Fire versions. I'm hoping for the Autobolter to get AP1 and the Stalker to get S5 instead of dropping the points, the Plasma Annihilator variants I don't care about so much.

4) I hope GW addresses chapter traits, relics, and strategems, it's really annoying for Ultramarines and Raven Guard to be so clearly superior to all the other options.

5) I also sincerely hope that they toss the strategems for three Predators/Vindicators/Librarians and replace them with something that might actually get used. And also adjust the CP costs for strategems overall.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
The problem with calling Disintegrator Cannons "D-Cannons" is that D-Cannons are already a thing - a Craftworld Eldar weapon to be precise.

See, this is why calling them dissies is bad. At least two people thought the discussion was about a completely different weapon.

The Newman wrote:
If we could take as given that the existing Marine spoilers are accurate (10% to 20% point drop, equipment dropping to Guard prices), there are still some things that I have on my wish-list:

1) There are a number of Marine weapon systems that do not appear in the Guard codex, I sincerely hope those don't get overlooked.

2) Fingers very much crossed that Centurions are closer to the 20% end of the scale.

3) Neither of the variant gun upgrades for Intercessors and Hellblasters feel like they should cost more than the basic Rapid Fire versions. I'm hoping for the Autobolter to get AP1 and the Stalker to get S5 instead of dropping the points, the Plasma Annihilator variants I don't care about so much.

4) I hope GW addresses chapter traits, relics, and strategems, it's really annoying for Ultramarines and Raven Guard to be so clearly superior to all the other options.

5) I also sincerely hope that they toss the strategems for three Predators/Vindicators/Librarians and replace them with something that might actually get used. And also adjust the CP costs for strategems overall.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
The problem with calling Disintegrator Cannons "D-Cannons" is that D-Cannons are already a thing - a Craftworld Eldar weapon to be precise.

See, this is why calling them dissies is bad. At least two people thought the discussion was about a completely different weapon.

The Hellblaster other weapon option should be reworked. At a minimum make them a cost free change. Same cost you can swap from Incinerators, to Heavy Incinerators, to Assault.

I doubt you see them too often even then, but it would be a start.

That is what I said. The Incinerators and Bolt Rifle variants are not worth more points than the basic rapid fire versions; I have an opinion about how the Bolt Rifle variants ought to be addressed, I don't care so much about how the Incinerator variants get fixed as long as something is done about them.

 Xenomancers wrote:

The Newman wrote:
Now now, we have to take all the spoilers and all the wild speculation that goes along with them. Twin Lascannons going to 40 pts = Guard prices for Marine gear 100% confirmed. 23 + 8 + ...1 point for a Guard Storm Bolter? 2 points? 2 to be safe = 33. So now I can almost take an extra Termie for every three I was taking before.

Rejoice!!!

The leaks I saw were for -3 point cost for terms. If that also comes with a reduced cost storm bolter that would be -4. That would put them at 34. About 4 points short of the upper end of where they should be IMO.

Base price for a Terminator is 40 points, minus 12 for the Power Fist and 2 each for the Combat Shield and Storm Bolter puts the basic dude to 24. A 3-point drop plus Guard-priced gear puts it at 33ish, I don't think Guard have access to Storm Bolters or Combat Shields to know for sure what they'd cost.

This forum has always devolved into the same thing; comparing point costs across codexes. And that's a big mistake, I think.

You simply can't. There are too many factors. You can't point to one weapon profile for marines and then point to a similar weapon profile for eldar and say "the numbers are almost identical, so they need to cost almost identical points!" No. One is in a marine army and one is in an eldar army. There are so many differences you're not accounting for it makes my head spin. Accuracy, speed, frailty, unit size, and delivery method of the unit fielding the weapon. Available auras and buffs that can effect the weapon. Stratagems. All other units in your army (are there much more dangerous things in your army that'll take the attention off this unit, vice vs?) You can go even broader and say "what kinds of allies are available to your army to augment/make up for this weapon's shortcomings?"

All armies are not created equal, which is the beauty of it, actually. A bolter-like weapon in the hands of an ork is a whole different animal than a bolter-like weapon in the hands of custodes. Different armies are good at (and bad at) different things. They cost different, even if the weapons, on the surface, might look similar. They're rarely comparable. This is GOOD.

Now that's not to say you CAN'T or SHOULDN'T suggest balance changes based on the over/under-performance of certain things. Points can and should change. But to point to things in different armies as the basis of your argument is almost always stupid.

ThePorcupine wrote:
This forum has always devolved into the same thing; comparing point costs across codexes. And that's a big mistake, I think.

You simply can't. There are too many factors. You can't point to one weapon profile for marines and then point to a similar weapon profile for eldar and say "the numbers are almost identical, so they need to cost almost identical points!" No. One is in a marine army and one is in an eldar army. There are so many differences you're not accounting for it makes my head spin. Accuracy, speed, frailty, unit size, and delivery method of the unit fielding the weapon. Available auras and buffs that can effect the weapon. Stratagems. All other units in your army (are there much more dangerous things in your army that'll take the attention off this unit, vice vs?) You can go even broader and say "what kinds of allies are available to your army to augment/make up for this weapon's shortcomings?"

All armies are not created equal, which is the beauty of it, actually. A bolter-like weapon in the hands of an ork is a whole different animal than a bolter-like weapon in the hands of custodes. Different armies are good at (and bad at) different things. They cost different, even if the weapons, on the surface, might look similar. They're rarely comparable. This is GOOD.

Now that's not to say you CAN'T or SHOULDN'T suggest balance changes based on the over/under-performance of certain things. Points can and should change. But to point to things in different armies as the basis of your argument is almost always stupid.

If you're reacting to me talking about a drop in Marine gear to Guard prices, that is based entirely on the spoiled price drop for a Marine twin Lascannon from 50 to 40. That's what Guard pays for a twin Lascannon, so we're all extrapolating. (Mostly because the other point drops we've seen so far are woefully inadequate on their own.)

Edit: And I'm not comparing a Lascannon in Marines to a similar weapon in Eldar, I'm talking about two models in the same sodding faction (Imperium) paying different prices for exactly the same piece of gear.

For that matter, if you're right about all those extraneous factors then shouldn't a Power Fist have wildly different point costs on a Tac squad Sergeant, a Vanguard Veteran, a vanilla Marine Captain, and a Blood Angels Captain? And shouldn't it's cost potentially get modified by warlord traits and relics? None of that happens, and I can only assume it's because the increased effectiveness of melee weapons is figured into the base cost of the model.

Weapons should cost the same regardless of what they are bolted to. You should pay the points for a weapons stats on the weapon cost and pay the points for a models stats on the model.

A lascannon should cost the same as all other lascannons, but a Predator can cost more than a Space Marine which costs more than a Heavy Weapon Team.

ThePorcupine wrote:
This forum has always devolved into the same thing; comparing point costs across codexes. And that's a big mistake, I think.

You simply can't. There are too many factors. You can't point to one weapon profile for marines and then point to a similar weapon profile for eldar and say "the numbers are almost identical, so they need to cost almost identical points!" No. One is in a marine army and one is in an eldar army. There are so many differences you're not accounting for it makes my head spin. Accuracy, speed, frailty, unit size, and delivery method of the unit fielding the weapon. Available auras and buffs that can effect the weapon. Stratagems. All other units in your army (are there much more dangerous things in your army that'll take the attention off this unit, vice vs?) You can go even broader and say "what kinds of allies are available to your army to augment/make up for this weapon's shortcomings?"

All armies are not created equal, which is the beauty of it, actually. A bolter-like weapon in the hands of an ork is a whole different animal than a bolter-like weapon in the hands of custodes. Different armies are good at (and bad at) different things. They cost different, even if the weapons, on the surface, might look similar. They're rarely comparable. This is GOOD.

Now that's not to say you CAN'T or SHOULDN'T suggest balance changes based on the over/under-performance of certain things. Points can and should change. But to point to things in different armies as the basis of your argument is almost always stupid.

How can we expect GW to balance things then? You say the myriad permutations of army creation is the “beauty” of it. I say that’s one of the ugliest aspects of this game; it was approaching impossible to balance 20 years ago with a handful of factions. Allies fundamentally ensure that the game will never be remotely balanced. Stratagems aren’t all that important because the factions that need them the most can’t generate enough CP to make prolific use of them. A bolter in the hands of anything is all the same species of animals; a dumpster diving raccoon or some mangy coyote or some other disgusting garbage eater. One man’s garbage is another man’s treasure though, so I’m happy you’re enjoying the “pot pourri” that is 40k. GW realistically needs to heavily restrict matched play, and the current way of things with allies, etc. needs to be the purview of narrative play.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Weapons should cost the same regardless of what they are bolted to. You should pay the points for a weapons stats on the weapon cost and pay the points for a models stats on the model.

A lascannon should cost the same as all other lascannons, but a Predator can cost more than a Space Marine which costs more than a Heavy Weapon Team.

This is my line of thinking as well. A weapon is a weapon is a weapon. The piece of meat or metal it’s strapped to is where points can change.

People will always bring up Stormtrooper Plasma as an example of why weapons need different costs. I disagree, but it's an argument. It could be fixed by making Hotshot Lasguns have a negative points value, but that's too complicated for 8th.

Avoid negative values wherever possible. It's a whole host of potenttial issues.

Then make a special "Tempestus Plasmagun" with it's own stats and points cost. Yes it's the same result but it keeps things consistent.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Weapons should cost the same regardless of what they are bolted to. You should pay the points for a weapons stats on the weapon cost and pay the points for a models stats on the model.

A lascannon should cost the same as all other lascannons, but a Predator can cost more than a Space Marine which costs more than a Heavy Weapon Team.

This is wrong on so many levels:

This would bring back Plasma Scions since the would be the same cost on them as on Infantry Squads

Units have different basic weapons. Guardsman have Lasguns while Space Marines have Bolters. What is the point cost of a Bolter, which you can give to some IG models

Any Melee Weapon is way more effective on a Space Marine Captain than on a Infantry Squad Sargent. They should cost the same points?

One small hope is that they re-price all the low-volume high-damage guns so that finally, best anti-horde =/= best anti-tank. Then players wouldn't be trying to eek out every last drop out of infantry guns, which contributes to way too much pressure placed on infantry platforms to be "good".

As long as you have platforms A and B, and weapons C and D where:
A is worth more than B
C is worth more than D
And A+C gets more benefit over A+D than B+C gets over B+D

It's not possible to have (nonzero) points values for {A, B, C, D} such that it's fair.

Dudes. StarCraft is one of the most successful competitive games of all time, if not THE most successful. An entire country's economy is based on it. And it is a strategy game built entirely upon "imbalance." By that I mean no 2 things are alike, and everything, in a vacuum, is broken. You cannot compare anything to anything. Siege tanks would be broken if they belonged to any other race. Carriers would be broken if they belonged to any other race. You can't compare mutas (flying harassers) to banshees (flying harassers) despite them filling a similar "role."

How can we expect GW to balance things then? The same way any other game/system is balanced where things aren't equal. You see what's under/over-performing and adjust accordingly. People here are under the impression there must be some formula you can plug point costs into to come up with the answer of "balance." It's not that concrete. You can't say "1 ap value is worth 5 points. deep striking is worth 7 points." You just can't. It varies from unit to unit from army to army. It's all different.

Maybe you can use a "this army pays X for this type of weapon while that army pays Y for a similar weapon" as kind of a vague guideline, sure. Then you can shrug and say "alright, lets play a bunch of test games with these new numbers and see how it feels." But it should never be more than a vague guideline.

Maybe that answer isn't as clear as people would like, or makes people upset or uncomfortable, but there isn't some magic formula.

If you want things to be super clear cut and hyper-balanced point for point, go play chess. Your pawns are just as good as the opponent's pawns and they paid the exact same point cost for them. I promise.

Bharring wrote:
As long as you have platforms A and B, and weapons C and D where:
A is worth more than B
C is worth more than D
And A+C gets more benefit over A+D than B+C gets over B+D

It's not possible to have (nonzero) points values for {A, B, C, D} such that it's fair.

this bears repeating

"If you want things to be super clear cut and hyper-balanced point for point, go play chess. Your pawns are just as good as the opponent's pawns and they paid the exact same point cost for them. I promise."

Fun fact, Porcupine: for an individual match, White is believed to be OP.

Bharring wrote:
As long as you have platforms A and B, and weapons C and D where:
A is worth more than B
C is worth more than D
And A+C gets more benefit over A+D than B+C gets over B+D

It's not possible to have (nonzero) points values for {A, B, C, D} such that it's fair.

You would have to define "worth more" and "more benefit." Do you mean cost more/less points? Do you mean perform an identical role in an identical fashion in a strictly better way with no other advantages/disadvantages, aka they're otherwise identical? Are platforms A and B in the same codex? Can be targettable by the same strategems?

This is pointless.

StarCraft has been balanced through patches over many years. I am not convinced by the claim its entirely built on "imbalance" - it isn't. Its built on a set of constraints - you have so many resources, and so many clicks. Players have over the years tested these to their limit and built a reasonably balanced game because if the game is "solved" it is patched.

40k is not limited by clicks - it is not real time. You are however limited by points. You are limited by the fact you will go first or second, and play for 5~ turns. You are also limited in that almost everything is probabilistic. In StarCraft if you get a siege tank into a certain spot you know you can shell the enemy and they have to do something. In a given 40k game, the dice can turn on you even if your build is BiS and theirs is terrible.

You may therefore not be able to say with exactitude that "1 ap value is worth 5 points. Deep striking is worth 7 points". You can however look across the board of units and compare. If the average unit is paying 5 points for 1 AP, then a unit that gets it for free is likely to be better than average. A unit which pays 20 points is likely to be worse than average. Apply this logic as a whole across factions are you are likely to determine that a faction - even in its most optimal build - is better or worse than average.

You can then bring this into alignment. Not everything will be perfect - given the luck involved in dice rolling it doesn't have to be. It just has to be close enough. If one unit for instance had a 50% chance to hit - and another unit had a 51% chance to hit - it would be very debatable whether it would be worth any points. Put another way, if the average cost for 1 AP was 5 points, and this unit got it for 4 points, they might be slightly better, but it wouldn't impact the game that much. Luck would impact the game far more than these minor statistical differences.

The issue for today - and its better than 40k has generally been for twenty years - is that certain obvious imbalances exist. These should be resolved. I don't know whether a Dissie Ravager (sorry all) should be 135 points or 155 points. I know however that it is too cheap at 125.

Bharring wrote:
"If you want things to be super clear cut and hyper-balanced point for point, go play chess. Your pawns are just as good as the opponent's pawns and they paid the exact same point cost for them. I promise."

Fun fact, Porcupine: for an individual match, White is believed to be OP.

And yet for 99% of the players here, that won't have an impact.

Just like how 99% off the whining here won't suddenly make you a better player.

As far as plasma on infantry squads versus scions/vets - both should cost the same, and that price should be the Scion price.

ThePorcupine wrote:
Dudes. StarCraft is one of the most successful competitive games of all time, if not THE most successful. An entire country's economy is based on it. And it is a strategy game built entirely upon "imbalance." By that I mean no 2 things are alike, and everything, in a vacuum, is broken. You cannot compare anything to anything. Siege tanks would be broken if they belonged to any other race. Carriers would be broken if they belonged to any other race. You can't compare mutas (flying harassers) to banshees (flying harassers) despite them filling a similar "role."

How can we expect GW to balance things then? The same way any other game/system is balanced where things aren't equal. You see what's under/over-performing and adjust accordingly. People here are under the impression there must be some formula you can plug point costs into to come up with the answer of "balance." It's not that concrete. You can't say "1 ap value is worth 5 points. deep striking is worth 7 points." You just can't. It varies from unit to unit from army to army. It's all different.

Maybe you can use a "this army pays X for this type of weapon while that army pays Y for a similar weapon" as kind of a vague guideline, sure. Then you can shrug and say "alright, lets play a bunch of test games with these new numbers and see how it feels." But it should never be more than a vague guideline.

Maybe that answer isn't as clear as people would like, or makes people upset or uncomfortable, but there isn't some magic formula.

If you want things to be super clear cut and hyper-balanced point for point, go play chess. Your pawns are just as good as the opponent's pawns and they paid the exact same point cost for them. I promise.

Funny how in starcraft players are basically at a draw at the top levels with all these imbalances. It's almost like a lot of work goes into perfecting every aspect of the game with special attention being given to every aspect of a unit - heck the races don't even obtain resources at the same rate (except for gas - which is the real balancing factor in SC).

In SC they don't just say - well this units moves twice as fast and doesn't have to pay for it. Or This unit always have massive resistance to damage. Or spam this unit and win. Every unit in SC has a hard counter. The Carrier is probably the only unit that does reasonably well vs everything - but it's also the most resource intensive unit for a race geared for late game (so if they reach their peak you probably are going to lose).

Starcrat is an amazing game but something that can never be reproduced in 40k is temporal cost. It's a huge part the game. If it worked like 40k and we just built 200 supply armies without knowing what the opponent was taking. SC would be just as unbalanced as 40k and 90% of the units would be useless.

Porcupine,
Nothing's pointless that you want to do or discuss. The point can simply be curiousity.

To expand on your questions, consider this situation:
Unit A: Super Aweome Ninja, BS2+
Unit B: Trained Ninja, BS4+
All other stats/rules identical.
Units may take one C or D.

Weapon C: Lets add SuperMegaGun. A12 48" range AP-5 D3
Weapon D: Lets add SuperFlamer. 2d6 auto hits at 8" range AP0 D1

What points values {A, B, C, D} make all that fair?

Because D autohits, A+D must equal B+D - thus A must equal B.

Because A hits more often than B with C, A+C must be greater than B+C. Thus A must be greater than B.

So, you come to:
A=B
A>B
Which has no solution.

 alextroy wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Weapons should cost the same regardless of what they are bolted to. You should pay the points for a weapons stats on the weapon cost and pay the points for a models stats on the model.

A lascannon should cost the same as all other lascannons, but a Predator can cost more than a Space Marine which costs more than a Heavy Weapon Team.

This is wrong on so many levels:

This would bring back Plasma Scions since the would be the same cost on them as on Infantry Squads

Units have different basic weapons. Guardsman have Lasguns while Space Marines have Bolters. What is the point cost of a Bolter, which you can give to some IG models

Any Melee Weapon is way more effective on a Space Marine Captain than on a Infantry Squad Sargent. They should cost the same points?

Yes they should cost the same.

Compare the 8 point or whatever Plasma Gun on Infantry to a Space Marine at 13. The Infantry is 12 points total and the Marine is 26.

Get this though. I get three meatshields for that Infantry Plasma Gun because of that wonky pricing model. 4 wounds with the Plasma Gun at 4+ is more effective than 1 wound with the Plasma Gun at 3+. If pricing was consistent, you'd at least only get two meatshields instead.

Lemondish wrote:

[...]

And yet for 99% of the players here, that won't have an impact.

Just like how 99% off the whining here won't suddenly make you a better player.

Quoted For Truth.

Lemondish wrote:

Bharring wrote:
"If you want things to be super clear cut and hyper-balanced point for point, go play chess. Your pawns are just as good as the opponent's pawns and they paid the exact same point cost for them. I promise."

Fun fact, Porcupine: for an individual match, White is believed to be OP.

And yet for 99% of the players here, that won't have an impact.

Just like how 99% off the whining here won't suddenly make you a better player.

As far as plasma on infantry squads versus scions/vets - both should cost the same, and that price should be the Scion price.

Nope. That's not how that works.

You can't price things that way, because everything works different based on the unit.

There's a reason thunder hammers are cheaper for non characters.

Tyel wrote:
You can however look across the board of units and compare. If the average unit is paying 5 points for 1 AP, then a unit that gets it for free is likely to be better than average. A unit which pays 20 points is likely to be worse than average. Apply this logic as a whole across factions are you are likely to determine that a faction - even in its most optimal build - is better or worse than average.

Again, that all depends. Is the unit that's paying more for 1AP also able to be targetable by a "shoot twice" stratagem? Or maybe they're much faster or can deep strike so they can get into rapid fire range much faster. All those things could make those 5 points totally worth it. The units would have to be otherwise identical in EVERY other way for you to decide "these 5 extra points I'm spending are clearly for the 1 AP, and it's clearly worth it/not worth it." And that's practically impossible.

Tyel wrote:
The issue for today - and its better than 40k has generally been for twenty years - is that certain obvious imbalances exist. These should be resolved. I don't know whether a Dissie Ravager (sorry all) should be 135 points or 155 points. I know however that it is too cheap at 125.

That's all I'm asking for. Yes, imbalances exist, and yes, we should work to solve them, and yes, that can be done by adjusting points. I think it's fair to say that dissie ravagers, the way they are now, are probably worth more than 125. I just think it's silly to point at other codexes and say "look! their gun is cheaper! NANI THE HELL"

 Xenomancers wrote:
Funny how in starcraft players are basically at a draw at the top levels with all these imbalances. It's almost like a lot of work goes into perfecting every aspect of the game with special attention being given to every aspect of a unit... In SC they don't just say - well this units moves twice as fast and doesn't have to pay for it. Or This unit always have massive resistance to damage. Or spam this unit and win. Every unit in SC has a hard counter...

Exactly! Just as they don't say "this unit moves twice as fast and doesn't have to pay for it" they don't say "this unit does half the damage of this other unit from this other army, but is forced to pay double." There's WAY too many factors. A newbie might look at a stim marine and say "this is sheer insanity! this 50 mineral unit does an absurd amount of DPS at good range, and it's cheap, and fast, and kites well, and a bunch of them fit in a transport! How is this even fair? My roaches do LESS dps for more than TWICE the cost! They're both ranged ground units, so the marine has to be nerfed to be in line with roaches." But that's an insanely narrow view. Just as saying "the disintegrator cannon and the grav cannon are almost identical, but the cost is vastly different! THIS IS bs" is insanely narrow-minded. It MIGHT be bs, but you can't concretely say "it's weapon point cost" and call it a day.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Starcrat is an amazing game but something that can never be reproduced in 40k is temporal cost. It's a huge part the game. If it worked like 40k and we just built 200 supply armies without knowing what the opponent was taking. SC would be just as unbalanced as 40k and 90% of the units would be useless.

Yes 40k doesn't have temporal cost, and it being turn-based means player multi-tasking and speed isn't nearly the factor that it is in sc2. But that doesn't mean "imbalanced balance", for lack of a better term, can't be strived for. I think 8th edition 40k is surprisingly varied given the huge amount of armies available. And when things overwhelmingly dominate the meta (like dark reapers or... what were those.. hive tyrants?), GW is usually pretty good in scaling them back.

I don't think we're in disagreement here, Xenomancers.

Sir Heckington wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

Bharring wrote:
"If you want things to be super clear cut and hyper-balanced point for point, go play chess. Your pawns are just as good as the opponent's pawns and they paid the exact same point cost for them. I promise."

Fun fact, Porcupine: for an individual match, White is believed to be OP.

And yet for 99% of the players here, that won't have an impact.

Just like how 99% off the whining here won't suddenly make you a better player.

As far as plasma on infantry squads versus scions/vets - both should cost the same, and that price should be the Scion price.

Nope. That's not how that works.

You can't price things that way, because everything works different based on the unit.

There's a reason thunder hammers are cheaper for non characters.

Might want to take another look, last time I checked a Thunder Hammer cost the same on any model in a faction that could carry it.

Sir Heckington wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

Bharring wrote:
"If you want things to be super clear cut and hyper-balanced point for point, go play chess. Your pawns are just as good as the opponent's pawns and they paid the exact same point cost for them. I promise."

Fun fact, Porcupine: for an individual match, White is believed to be OP.

And yet for 99% of the players here, that won't have an impact.

Just like how 99% off the whining here won't suddenly make you a better player.

As far as plasma on infantry squads versus scions/vets - both should cost the same, and that price should be the Scion price.

Nope. That's not how that works.

You can't price things that way, because everything works different based on the unit.

There's a reason thunder hammers are cheaper for non characters.

Sure it is. A plasma gun on an infantry gunner shouldn't be equally as efficient as on the Scion, because that makes bloody sense. It's a less efficient platform for that weapon, and the cost of the weapon shouldn't be adjusted to make the infantry gunner more desirable as a carrier.

It's a weapon. It should cost the bloody same everywhere. The unit carrying it is where the spread should exist.

"It's a weapon. It should cost the bloody same everywhere. The unit carrying it is where the spread should exist."

How do you handle when the spread should be different for different weapons? The spread between two platforms isn't always the same for all weapons.

 alextroy wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Weapons should cost the same regardless of what they are bolted to. You should pay the points for a weapons stats on the weapon cost and pay the points for a models stats on the model.

A lascannon should cost the same as all other lascannons, but a Predator can cost more than a Space Marine which costs more than a Heavy Weapon Team.

This is wrong on so many levels:

This would bring back Plasma Scions since the would be the same cost on them as on Infantry Squads

Units have different basic weapons. Guardsman have Lasguns while Space Marines have Bolters. What is the point cost of a Bolter, which you can give to some IG models

Any Melee Weapon is way more effective on a Space Marine Captain than on a Infantry Squad Sargent. They should cost the same points?

You know you could, I dunno, make Scions cost more to compensate? Or if the "problem" is the plasma gun, give them "Inquisitorial Issue Plasma Guns" and give them a different cost.

The Newman wrote:

Might want to take another look, last time I checked a Thunder Hammer cost the same on any model in a faction that could carry it.

You sure?





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Weapons should cost the same regardless of what they are bolted to. You should pay the points for a weapons stats on the weapon cost and pay the points for a models stats on the model.

A lascannon should cost the same as all other lascannons, but a Predator can cost more than a Space Marine which costs more than a Heavy Weapon Team.

This is wrong on so many levels:

This would bring back Plasma Scions since the would be the same cost on them as on Infantry Squads

Units have different basic weapons. Guardsman have Lasguns while Space Marines have Bolters. What is the point cost of a Bolter, which you can give to some IG models

Any Melee Weapon is way more effective on a Space Marine Captain than on a Infantry Squad Sargent. They should cost the same points?

You know you could, I dunno, make Scions cost more to compensate? Or if the "problem" is the plasma gun, give them "Inquisitorial Issue Plasma Guns" and give them a different cost.

Then suddenly scions without plasma are terrible for the cost. This is a bad idea. There is also no reason to create a new weapon, because we already have an entry for BS3 plasma.