Chapter Approved 2018, What do we expect?

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.

**Asherian Command**

Daedalus81 wrote:
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?

Characters are not normal models or infantry models though

**Ice_can**

Asherian Command wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
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?

Characters are not normal models or infantry models though

They have the infantry keyword though, Well all except the Primarch.

**Apple Peel**

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.

By all that is blessed by the Emperor, Scions do not need a points increase.

**Asherian Command**

Ice_can wrote:
Asherian Command wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
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?

Characters are not normal models or infantry models though

They have the infantry keyword though, Well all except the Primarch.

But they aren't really an 'infantry' squad, they also have the 'character' rule. Characters have multiple wounds and special rules of their own and cannot be targeted directly unless it says so in a weapon profile if they are placed with an infantry squad. Because of this character models have always been more powerful because of those rules.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Apple Peel wrote:
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.

By all that is blessed by the Emperor, Scions do not need a points increase.

Yes they do. You just decrease the cost of the Hotshot to compensate.

Now the Plasma Gun Scions are just slightly more expensive but the regular dudes are the same. Cool, huh?

**The Newman**

Daedalus81 wrote:
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?

Huh, did not notice that. Weird that they only did it for the T-Hammer and not for any of the other melee weapons.

**Sir Heckington**

Ice_can wrote:
Asherian Command wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
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?

Characters are not normal models or infantry models though

They have the infantry keyword though, Well all except the Primarch.

And I specifically mentioned characters... so this is pointless.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Newman wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
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?

Huh, did not notice that. Weird that they only did it for the T-Hammer and not for any of the other melee weapons.

Yeah it is, they should do it more.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Apple Peel wrote:
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.

By all that is blessed by the Emperor, Scions do not need a points increase.

Yes they do. You just decrease the cost of the Hotshot to compensate.

Now the Plasma Gun Scions are just slightly more expensive but the regular dudes are the same. Cool, huh?

This method doesn't always work, especially with units who's weapons cost 0...

This is just the same as pricing weapons differently, just in a different way.

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.

This is... what? Just have the point cost on the datasheet, and then in the list of all the points have a little thing next to it saying for what unit the cost is for. No need to change the names.

**JohnnyHell**

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.

Which just proves "dissy" works even less as an abbreviation as I assumed it meant D-Cannon! Pet names are just ugh.

**Martel732**

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.

That's not imbalance. That's asymmetry. Very different. And sc also has temporal costs.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Apple Peel wrote:
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.

By all that is blessed by the Emperor, Scions do not need a points increase.

They kinda do, imo.

**Apple Peel**

Martel732 wrote:
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.

That's not imbalance. That's asymmetry. Very different. And sc also has temporal costs.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Apple Peel wrote:
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.

By all that is blessed by the Emperor, Scions do not need a points increase.

They kinda do, imo.

But why?

**Slayer-Fan123**

Sir Heckington wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
Asherian Command wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
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?

Characters are not normal models or infantry models though

They have the infantry keyword though, Well all except the Primarch.

And I specifically mentioned characters... so this is pointless.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Newman wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
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?

Huh, did not notice that. Weird that they only did it for the T-Hammer and not for any of the other melee weapons.

Yeah it is, they should do it more.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Apple Peel wrote:
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.

By all that is blessed by the Emperor, Scions do not need a points increase.

Yes they do. You just decrease the cost of the Hotshot to compensate.

Now the Plasma Gun Scions are just slightly more expensive but the regular dudes are the same. Cool, huh?

This method doesn't always work, especially with units who's weapons cost 0...

This is just the same as pricing weapons differently, just in a different way.

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.

This is... what? Just have the point cost on the datasheet, and then in the list of all the points have a little thing next to it saying for what unit the cost is for. No need to change the names.

1. Nobody is going to buy Power Weapons for their characters if you increase the cost because they aren't worth more than 5 points in the first place.
2. Scions don't have their Hotshots at 0 points so it's fine.

**Xenomancers**

The command squads were too good but they handled that by making a tempestor prime required for each command squad. He cost as much as 3 scions and doesn't do anything useful for his cost.

The scion troop squads can only take 2 specials. Plus I feel like the Hot shot las should be buffed to 24" lol. Their cost is fine.

**Marmatag**

Hot shot las has way too much AP though. More proof that the base boltgun should be AP-1 against <INFANTRY>.

edit, astartes boltguns should be. not everyone's.

**Xenomancers**

Marmatag wrote:
Hot shot las has way too much AP though. More proof that the base boltgun should be AP-1 against <INFANTRY>.

It's certainly better than a bolter but the practicality of a deep strike unit with an 18" rapid fire weapon is like...WHAT? Make it assault 18" or rapid 24". They pay a solid 10 points per model.

**Apple Peel**

Marmatag wrote:
Hot shot las has way too much AP though. More proof that the base boltgun should be AP-1 against <INFANTRY>.

edit, astartes boltguns should be. not everyone's.

I don’t see Astartes wearing external power packs for their bolters. External power packs that traditionally had Scions (with accurate fire at the joints) taking down Eldar war machines.

**Xenomancers**

Apple Peel wrote:
Marmatag wrote:
Hot shot las has way too much AP though. More proof that the base boltgun should be AP-1 against <INFANTRY>.

edit, astartes boltguns should be. not everyone's.

I don’t see Astartes wearing external power packs for their bolters. External power packs that traditionally had Scions (with accurate fire at the joints) taking down Eldar war machines.

Hey lets not start this. LOL. Scions are the Astras elite forces and they get their best weapons. No problem with that. A scion really shouldn't be armed better than a marine though. Otherwise marines would just have hotshot lasguns.

Marine bolters should be better. My personal feels is that bolters should ether reroll wounds against non vehicals or be str 6. That is way out of the question though. They are basically firing krak grenades.

**Apple Peel**

Xenomancers wrote:
Apple Peel wrote:
Marmatag wrote:
Hot shot las has way too much AP though. More proof that the base boltgun should be AP-1 against <INFANTRY>.

edit, astartes boltguns should be. not everyone's.

I don’t see Astartes wearing external power packs for their bolters. External power packs that traditionally had Scions (with accurate fire at the joints) taking down Eldar war machines.

Hey lets not start this. LOL. Scions are the Astras elite forces and they get their best weapons. No problem with that. A scion really shouldn't be armed better than a marine though. Otherwise marines would just have hotshot lasguns.

Marine bolters should be better. My personal feels is that bolters should ether reroll wounds against non vehicals or be str 6. That is way out of the question though.

I don’t we just buff the bad marines and keep the Scions the same?

**Xenomancers**

Yeah I don't think scions are going to get nerfed...not again.

**fraser1191**

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.

Thank you!
There's a reason a guardsmen costs less than a marine. He himself has worse stats

**Marmatag**

fraser1191 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.

Thank you!
There's a reason a guardsmen costs less than a marine. He himself has worse stats

Except to date, wargear on guardsmen has been cheaper.

**Bremon**

ThePorcupine wrote:
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

So we should pay for the ability to use stratagems, even though we already pay CP to use them? That’s the POS design ethos that broke Marines this edition. “They CAN perform better than other scrubs in melee. The CAN survive small arms fire better than other scrubs. They CAN hit more often wth their bolters than other scrubs.”, then they get priced as if they are able to achieve all of that every turn. Why should you pay points for the ability to benefit from a stratagem when you’re already paying a troop tax to do so, and by committing to one are limiting other options? That’s asinine. Should Sternguard pay more points because they have access to a crappy stratagem for their boltguns when stormbolters are better in 90% of cases anyway?

**Vaktathi**

fraser1191 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.

Thank you!
There's a reason a guardsmen costs less than a marine. He himself has worse stats

The problem is that the relative value of those weapons changes across various platforms in ways not accounted for purely in the base cost. This is why many pieces of equipment have often cost less for Guardsmen than they have for Space Marines across many editions, and why several weapons are currently split in cost for BS3+ and BS4+ Guard units.

Unfortunately GW's design philosophy is not exactly consistent, but divorcing weapons costs entirely from the platforms they're attached to is a mistake 40k has made all too often, resulting in lots of garbage or overpowered units over the years.

**nareik**

I forecast cheese, with a very large, but half empty glass of wine!

**fraser1191**

Vaktathi wrote:
fraser1191 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.

Thank you!
There's a reason a guardsmen costs less than a marine. He himself has worse stats
The problem is that the relative value of those weapons changes across various platforms in ways not accounted for purely in the base cost. This is why many pieces of equipment have often cost less for Guardsmen than they have for Space Marines across many editions, and why several weapons are currently split in cost for BS3+ and BS4+ Guard units.

Unfortunately GW's design philosophy is not exactly consistent, but divorcing weapons costs entirely from the platforms they're attached to is a mistake 40k has made all too often, resulting in lots of garbage or overpowered units over the years.

Well I'm go do the Dakka thing and assume I know what I'm talking about...

So the current rumor is Twin LC is going to 40, similar to current guard points. I'm betting that that's going to be the norm. GW probably sees as guard being a functional army. Theres a good chance oodles of emails have been sent saying marines are meh. I'm betting GWs fix for marines is just dropping all the point values to guard levels.

**Galef**

nareik wrote:
I forecast cheese, with a very large, but half empty glass of wine!

You mean a half empty glass of whining.

-

**Earth127**

There will be multiple of wine, cheese and whining three.

**Reemule**

I hope they do some kind of out of the blue power nerf on CP or Stratagems to cause many people calm to be damaged.

**Xenomancers**

There will be no change in the CP system I am pretty sure.

There will be much whine. My favorite cheese in gouda - please have it available.

**Blackie**

Why improving bolters though? Isn't SM shooting already decent at least? It's their melee ability that is a joke. I think SM would be better if chainswords get AP-1 rather than bolters. Or to give something like 4-5 attacks on the charge for assault squads, jump pack dudes and elites with anti infantry weapons.

Play AM if you want a pure gunline. SM will always suck if they're forced to be the weakest version of AM.

**Tyel**

Bremon wrote:
So we should pay for the ability to use stratagems, even though we already pay CP to use them? That’s the POS design ethos that broke Marines this edition. “They CAN perform better than other scrubs in melee. The CAN survive small arms fire better than other scrubs. They CAN hit more often wth their bolters than other scrubs.”, then they get priced as if they are able to achieve all of that every turn. Why should you pay points for the ability to benefit from a stratagem when you’re already paying a troop tax to do so, and by committing to one are limiting other options? That’s asinine. Should Sternguard pay more points because they have access to a crappy stratagem for their boltguns when stormbolters are better in 90% of cases anyway?

Well... whether you like it or not - you do.
Why are cultists going up (if indeed they are)? Surely not because of anything in the datasheet. Its because the only situations you see them they are buffed up the eyeballs with stratagems, chapter tactics and characters.
GW could resolve this (and other stratagem/buff related issues) by putting in provisos "thy shalt not use these on [UNIT]" but that would be messy.

In a more recent development - if the "Ork Castellan" of mob-up 25 lootas, More Dakka! and shoot twice stratagem (while defending the unit with 60-90 grot shields) turns out to be broken (obviously CP intensive - but you can easily do it twice, maybe 3 times per game) what are the options? Ban Lootas from mobbing up? Ban them from using grot shields or shooting twice? Or more likely raising their points. Especially if - as is quite plausible - no one ever fields them except to do this.
Or you can hike the stratagems - but that makes them worse on smaller units.