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.

 Dawnbringer wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Or gw could just not make something auto choice. Shocking yes. Game developers doing actual job and not just be marketing department's rubber stamps.

There's too many variables and moving parts to make everything equally balanced, without stripping it back to "special weapon" as the profile, you can't necessarily equate opportunity cost into a weapon. grenade launchers are fairly ubiquitous, as are plasma guns, so they'd have to be priced a lot more than say a flamer or a melta who have fewer targets and opportunities, but due to the meta/prevalence of certain opponents there'll always be a "best" weapon to pick.

It's almost like you found a way to balance it.

Except you don't know what you'll be opposing, so you either always take the generalist option, or you know the skew in the meta which means there is a "best" choice.

Dudeface wrote:

 Dawnbringer wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Or gw could just not make something auto choice. Shocking yes. Game developers doing actual job and not just be marketing department's rubber stamps.

There's too many variables and moving parts to make everything equally balanced, without stripping it back to "special weapon" as the profile, you can't necessarily equate opportunity cost into a weapon. grenade launchers are fairly ubiquitous, as are plasma guns, so they'd have to be priced a lot more than say a flamer or a melta who have fewer targets and opportunities, but due to the meta/prevalence of certain opponents there'll always be a "best" weapon to pick.

It's almost like you found a way to balance it.

Except you don't know what you'll be opposing, so you either always take the generalist option, or you know the skew in the meta which means there is a "best" choice.

Soooooo how do other armies with specialist units handle it? Hmmmmm super difficult....

Dudeface wrote:
There's too many variables and moving parts to make everything equally balanced, without stripping it back to "special weapon" as the profile, you can't necessarily equate opportunity cost into a weapon. grenade launchers are fairly ubiquitous, as are plasma guns, so they'd have to be priced a lot more than say a flamer or a melta who have fewer targets and opportunities, but due to the meta/prevalence of certain opponents there'll always be a "best" weapon to pick.

You're acting like this is a new thing, and isn't something that has been basically solved for 20+ years.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Oh joy, we have people actively defending GW's crap "build only what's in the box" rules writing.

People will defend anything GW does.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Dawnbringer wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Or gw could just not make something auto choice. Shocking yes. Game developers doing actual job and not just be marketing department's rubber stamps.

There's too many variables and moving parts to make everything equally balanced, without stripping it back to "special weapon" as the profile, you can't necessarily equate opportunity cost into a weapon. grenade launchers are fairly ubiquitous, as are plasma guns, so they'd have to be priced a lot more than say a flamer or a melta who have fewer targets and opportunities, but due to the meta/prevalence of certain opponents there'll always be a "best" weapon to pick.

It's almost like you found a way to balance it.

Except you don't know what you'll be opposing, so you either always take the generalist option, or you know the skew in the meta which means there is a "best" choice.

Soooooo how do other armies with specialist units handle it? Hmmmmm super difficult....

You pay for the opportunity cost the same as with these weapons, but I'd wager that all the various aspect warriors for example aren't either deviated enough that they all have a unique place or are evenly balanced in cost/potential that it doesn't matter what aspects you bring and get a balanced list/game.

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Dawnbringer wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Or gw could just not make something auto choice. Shocking yes. Game developers doing actual job and not just be marketing department's rubber stamps.

There's too many variables and moving parts to make everything equally balanced, without stripping it back to "special weapon" as the profile, you can't necessarily equate opportunity cost into a weapon. grenade launchers are fairly ubiquitous, as are plasma guns, so they'd have to be priced a lot more than say a flamer or a melta who have fewer targets and opportunities, but due to the meta/prevalence of certain opponents there'll always be a "best" weapon to pick.

It's almost like you found a way to balance it.

Except you don't know what you'll be opposing, so you either always take the generalist option, or you know the skew in the meta which means there is a "best" choice.

Soooooo how do other armies with specialist units handle it? Hmmmmm super difficult....

You pay for the opportunity cost the same as with these weapons, but I'd wager that all the various aspect warriors for example aren't either deviated enough that they all have a unique place or are evenly balanced in cost/potential that it doesn't matter what aspects you bring and get a balanced list/game.

And those Aspect Warriors all get the same weapon, not just 2 per 5!
So make the Plasma Gun more expensive. Wow, super difficult.

So I guess I know what the next few pages of "discussion" are going to be.

I don't really know the best answer for any of this mess but honestly I will say that I don't hate GW going "look, you don't have to buy 5 boxes to get enough lighting claws for a unit now", I just wish that was done with a robust bits set than restricting wargear options.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
So I guess I know what the next few pages of "discussion" are going to be.

I don't really know the best answer for any of this mess but honestly I will say that I don't hate GW going "look, you don't have to buy 5 boxes to get enough lighting claws for a unit now", I just wish that was done with a robust bits set than restricting wargear options.

While I wish loadout rules were not as restrictive as well, look at the upside.

And tell me when you find it.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
So I guess I know what the next few pages of "discussion" are going to be.

I don't really know the best answer for any of this mess but honestly I will say that I don't hate GW going "look, you don't have to buy 5 boxes to get enough lighting claws for a unit now", I just wish that was done with a robust bits set than restricting wargear options.

"You don't have to buy this - because it's no longer an option."

Not exactly seeing what the upside is here.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
So I guess I know what the next few pages of "discussion" are going to be.

I don't really know the best answer for any of this mess but honestly I will say that I don't hate GW going "look, you don't have to buy 5 boxes to get enough lighting claws for a unit now", I just wish that was done with a robust bits set than restricting wargear options.

Except the wargear restrictions aren't even based on "what's in the box". The Raptors/Warp Talons box contains 10 lighting claws, and yet, according to the leaks and leaked Raptors instruction sheets, Raptor Aspiring Champions can no longer have lighting claws. This despite lighting claws being an option for them since the units inception.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
So I guess I know what the next few pages of "discussion" are going to be.

I don't really know the best answer for any of this mess but honestly I will say that I don't hate GW going "look, you don't have to buy 5 boxes to get enough lighting claws for a unit now", I just wish that was done with a robust bits set than restricting wargear options.

Except the wargear restrictions aren't even based on "what's in the box". The Raptors/Warp Talons box contains 10 lighting claws, and yet, according to the leaks and leaked Raptors instruction sheets, Raptor Aspiring Champions can no longer have lighting claws. This despite lighting claws being an option for them since the units inception.

B-b-b-b-b-b-b-but the new players might be confused by options! Better make it so models only go together one way.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

And those Aspect Warriors all get the same weapon, not just 2 per 5!
So make the Plasma Gun more expensive. Wow, super difficult.

OK, how much more does a plasma gun need to be? What price points do you foresee where you think "you know what it doesn't matter if I take a flamer, plasma gun or a melta gun, they're all going to be equally useful"?

Because if it was that simple I'm sure they'd have got it right by now.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
So I guess I know what the next few pages of "discussion" are going to be.

I don't really know the best answer for any of this mess but honestly I will say that I don't hate GW going "look, you don't have to buy 5 boxes to get enough lighting claws for a unit now", I just wish that was done with a robust bits set than restricting wargear options.

Except the wargear restrictions aren't even based on "what's in the box". The Raptors/Warp Talons box contains 10 lighting claws, and yet, according to the leaks and leaked Raptors instruction sheets, Raptor Aspiring Champions can no longer have lighting claws. This despite lighting claws being an option for them since the units inception.

B-b-b-b-b-b-b-but the new players might be confused by options! Better make it so models only go together one way.

As we know, new players are like dumb cattle, and concepts like conversions, kitbashing, or mixing kits, are anathema to them.

It really is just that simple. You take your base model for your codex and give it all three weapon options then you look at the average damage that they do vs the same target (if you want you can use more than one target and get more data points). Then you compare the results. After that you find out that weapon A is 2 times more effective than weapon B but only 3/4 as effective vs weapon C. Make weapon A cost a arbitrary point cost, make weapon B half that cost and weapon C 1/3 more. There you have it all 3 weapon options are now balanced.

The problem GW has is that they want to make weapon costs the same across various Codices that don't use the same base model stats (SM vs IG vs GK). So that the cost doesn't reflect the difference in effectiveness in each codex.

 blood reaper wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
So I guess I know what the next few pages of "discussion" are going to be.

I don't really know the best answer for any of this mess but honestly I will say that I don't hate GW going "look, you don't have to buy 5 boxes to get enough lighting claws for a unit now", I just wish that was done with a robust bits set than restricting wargear options.

Except the wargear restrictions aren't even based on "what's in the box". The Raptors/Warp Talons box contains 10 lighting claws, and yet, according to the leaks and leaked Raptors instruction sheets, Raptor Aspiring Champions can no longer have lighting claws. This despite lighting claws being an option for them since the units inception.

B-b-b-b-b-b-b-but the new players might be confused by options! Better make it so models only go together one way.

As we know, new players are like dumb cattle, and concepts like conversions, kitbashing, or mixing kits, are anathema to them.

And so is, apparently, using parts from the actual kit for the unit that they're building, in the case of Raptors.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

And so is, apparently, using parts from the actual kit for the unit that they're building, in the case of Raptors.

Is that really a road you want to go down?

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
It really is just that simple. You take your base model for your codex and give it all three weapon options then you look at the average damage that they do vs the same target (if you want you can use more than one target and get more data points). Then you compare the results. After that you find out that weapon A is 2 times more effective than weapon B but only 3/4 as effective vs weapon C. Make weapon A cost a arbitrary point cost, make weapon B half that cost and weapon C 1/3 more. There you have it all 3 weapon options are now balanced.

The problem GW has is that they want to make weapon costs the same across various Codices that don't use the same base model stats (SM vs IG vs GK). So that the cost doesn't reflect the difference in effectiveness in each codex.

But it's not that simple, a melta gun is more effective against a vehicle, a plasma gun is more effective against meq and flamer against geq, but the amount of damage done alone doesn't reflect the different ranges of the weapons, different special rules and risks etc.

All of this balanced inside of a generally 10 point window, it isn't going to be perfect and there will be a "best" option overall.

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

And those Aspect Warriors all get the same weapon, not just 2 per 5!
So make the Plasma Gun more expensive. Wow, super difficult.

OK, how much more does a plasma gun need to be? What price points do you foresee where you think "you know what it doesn't matter if I take a flamer, plasma gun or a melta gun, they're all going to be equally useful"?

Because if it was that simple I'm sure they'd have got it right by now.

Bump it by 5 more points and then adjust as necessary. Another option is to look at the base model if you don't want to make the weapon itself more expensive. I'm 90% sure Scions pay for their HotShot Lasguns. Make the base model the same cost as now but make the HotShot free. There's a few different things you could do.

Also LOL at GW getting it right. Did you think they couldn't appropriately cost weapons and that's why Sword Brethren can only take 1 of each power weapon?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

And so is, apparently, using parts from the actual kit for the unit that they're building, in the case of Raptors.

Is that really a road you want to go down?

What "road" is that, exactly? Because right now, it's looking like gw isn't even following their "you get what's in the box" road, in the instance of Raptor Aspiring Champions, and removing an option that they've had since the unit was first introduced in the 3rd edition CSM codex, even though there's 10 of them in the box.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

And so is, apparently, using parts from the actual kit for the unit that they're building, in the case of Raptors.

Is that really a road you want to go down?

What "road" is that, exactly? Because right now, it's looking like gw isn't even following their "you get what's in the box" road, in the instance of Raptor Aspiring Champions, and removing an option that they've had since the unit was first introduced in the 3rd edition CSM codex, even though there's 10 of them in the box.

Cool, so can Skitarii Rangers start taking Radium Carbines? Vanguard taking Galvanic Rifles?

It's a dual box. You don't get to use all the pieces...which does well and truly feel wasteful at times.
It sucks you've lost some stuff on the Aspiring Champions, truly, but that's the way it goes...or so I've been told over the years(including several times by you!) for Lasguns on Sergeants+Officers.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

And so is, apparently, using parts from the actual kit for the unit that they're building, in the case of Raptors.

Is that really a road you want to go down?

What "road" is that, exactly? Because right now, it's looking like gw isn't even following their "you get what's in the box" road, in the instance of Raptor Aspiring Champions, and removing an option that they've had since the unit was first introduced in the 3rd edition CSM codex, even though there's 10 of them in the box.

Cool, so can Skitarii Rangers start taking Radium Carbines? Vanguard taking Galvanic Rifles?

It's a dual box. You don't get to use all the pieces...which does well and truly feel wasteful at times.
It sucks you've lost some stuff on the Aspiring Champions, truly, but that's the way it goes...or so I've been told over the years(including several times by you!) for Lasguns on Sergeants+Officers.

When have I said that about Sergeants and Officers taking Lasguns? That isn't something that would bother me at all. I think you're confusing me with someone else.

And have Rangers ever been able to get Radium Carbines? If so, then they should still be able to. Same for Vanguard and Galvanic Rifles. I don't support removing options.

It'd probably just be easier if Skitarii were just one troop option and the unit itself chose the all of one base gun.

Yeah the no LCs on raptor champs is indefensible. It's been an option since before the box, it's part of the lore, it's part of existing models, it's still part of the kit.

It's like if they made a dreadnought kit that allowed you to make the mortis versions in addition to the more common ones, but then they decided to bar you from taking a lascannon on a regular dread.

Kan will take any opportunity to complain about Skitarii weapon options and insist that everyone else should be brought down because of it.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Kan will take any opportunity to complain about Skitarii weapon options and insist that everyone else should be brought down because of it.

Not really, but I'm not hating the karma coming back on people telling me to "get over it" when they changed things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

When have I said that about Sergeants and Officers taking Lasguns? That isn't something that would bother me at all. I think you're confusing me with someone else.

Newp.

And have Rangers ever been able to get Radium Carbines? If so, then they should still be able to. Same for Vanguard and Galvanic Rifles. I don't support removing options.

No, because they're different unit loadouts.

Got a bunch of twin LC Raptors?
You've got Warp Talons now!

 Kanluwen wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Kan will take any opportunity to complain about Skitarii weapon options and insist that everyone else should be brought down because of it.

Not really, but I'm not hating the karma coming back on people telling me to "get over it" when they changed things.

That sure looks like you're literally saying that it's some sort of spiritual or cosmic justice that everyone is brought down because of it?

Hopefully we start seeing inverse Crisis Suit points on some units.

Take a combi-melta, combi-flamer and a combi-plasma in one squad and you get them all free...

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

When have I said that about Sergeants and Officers taking Lasguns? That isn't something that would bother me at all. I think you're confusing me with someone else.

Newp.

Yup. I guess you're going to blame me for whoever cut you off in traffic the other day too.

And have Rangers ever been able to get Radium Carbines? If so, then they should still be able to. Same for Vanguard and Galvanic Rifles. I don't support removing options.

No, because they're different unit loadouts.

Got a bunch of twin LC Raptors?
You've got Warp Talons now!

I already have enough for three full squads. I don't need anymore. And lightning claws have been a legal option for Raptor Aspiring Champions for 22 years. This invalidates a lot of people's models. That's not cool.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Kan will take any opportunity to complain about Skitarii weapon options and insist that everyone else should be brought down because of it.

Not really, but I'm not hating the karma coming back on people telling me to "get over it" when they changed things.

Literally nobody told you that, and everyone was annoyed when it started happening with Plague Marines. Don't make up problems with people that don't exist outside your head.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Kan will take any opportunity to complain about Skitarii weapon options and insist that everyone else should be brought down because of it.

Not really, but I'm not hating the karma coming back on people telling me to "get over it" when they changed things.

That sure looks like you're literally saying that it's some sort of spiritual or cosmic justice that everyone is brought down because of it?

When those same people complaining now are the ones for YEARS telling me to "adjust" or "get over it"?

It sure seems like it is.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

When have I said that about Sergeants and Officers taking Lasguns? That isn't something that would bother me at all. I think you're confusing me with someone else.

Newp.

Yup. I guess you're going to blame me for whoever cut you off in traffic the other day too.

Well not you, it was the raptor champion who was driving using his lightning claws