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.
Gadzilla666 wrote: They used to do something similar with Havocs and Devastators back in 3rd/4th. They paid extra for their heavy/ special weapons compared to other units that couldn't take them in the same concentration, like basic CSM, Tacs, and Chosen. It's basically a "specialization tax".
And it made no sense back then either. Make the grunt worth taking to begin with and you'll not have that issue.
Yes, it did, and it had nothing to do with the "grunts". It was a tax on concentrating firepower across less bodies, and in a single unit, which was a strong ability considering the Target Priority rules and lack of splitfire in 4th. What exactly it's supposed to do here, I'm not sure yet.
Same thing: Concentrate more desirable firepower on a single body. The two situations that make that useful are having more ablative bodies to block for it (in multi-model units), or only having to take one model for twice the fire power (in Knights, where you are reasonably likely to take a Despoiler and a shedload of wardogs).
Except, as established, the same amount of firepower on the same amount of bodies costs more depending on how those guns are allocated. Knight AA + Knight BB costs more points than Knight AB + Knight AB, despite identical firing capacity. Specialization is worth something, but on such high point models versatility is often worth as much or more.
The efficiency tax is meant to cover everything from the simple ability to concentrate firepower (two knights cannot be in the same place), to taking less bodies for the weapons, and maximizing usage of stratagems and upgrades. Only time will tell if 20 points is enough, too much, or too little.
Two Knights can't be at the same place at once? How small and hard you think Knights are to deploy?
There is a very simple reason to increase cost for doubling up, and thats buffs and stratagem use. Whatever the source of the improvement on the profile, being able to do it 2x is a big difference in damage throughput, far more than only getting the buffs on one of those guns(or melee). Say buffs double your output knight AB1 does x2 damage and knight AB2 does normal damage = 300% total damage. Now knight AA1 gets its output doubled and it becomes Ax2 +Ax2 = 400% total damage output and then you have knight BB whos also potentially able to do the same thing in melee or w/e. If anything considering the power of the weapons were talking about its under costed when your talking about a favor buff, psychic buff and stratagem buff combined and how they are limited to single use each during the same phase/turn/game. Hopefully I explained it so its a bit clearer.
So you think the second Lascannon in a Devastator Squad should cost more than the first?
[EDIT]: Balancing costs on what strats may be used on a unit is a terrible way to balance rules. The cost should reflect the abilities of the weapon. If a strat changes that, then balance the cost of the strat. If other buffs can make the weapon better, then the units with those buffs should have their costs altered to reflect the potential use of said buffs, not the weapons that may gain that buff, or may never gain that buff.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/04/26 01:15:27
Why are you guys all acting like they don't already do this? Even currently, a single Avenger gatling cannon costs 90 points, while a pair costs 200 - a 20-point premium for doubling up.
She/Her
"There are no problems that cannot be solved with cannons." - Chief Engineer Boris Krauss of Nuln
Kid_Kyoto wrote:"Don't be a dick" and "This is a family wargame" are good rules of thumb.
H.B.M.C. wrote: So you think the second Lascannon in a Devastator Squad should cost more than the first?
[EDIT]: Balancing costs on what strats may be used on a unit is a terrible way to balance rules. The cost should reflect the abilities of the weapon. If a strat changes that, then balance the cost of the strat. If other buffs can make the weapon better, then the units with those buffs should have their costs altered to reflect the potential use of said buffs, not the weapons that may gain that buff, or may never gain that buff.
I think the math difference on a devastator squad is negligible compared to what were talking about because at max unit size and max loadout your not even close on the return potential. I do agree it's a poor way to balance it as were talking doubling shooting output on a 500+ point model and all the multiplicative buffs that follow for 70-80*ish points, the only way to reasonably balance it is to not allow it in the first place. I heavily suspect its drastically under costed.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/04/26 01:43:21
Gadzilla666 wrote: They used to do something similar with Havocs and Devastators back in 3rd/4th. They paid extra for their heavy/ special weapons compared to other units that couldn't take them in the same concentration, like basic CSM, Tacs, and Chosen. It's basically a "specialization tax".
And it made no sense back then either. Make the grunt worth taking to begin with and you'll not have that issue.
Yes, it did, and it had nothing to do with the "grunts". It was a tax on concentrating firepower across less bodies, and in a single unit, which was a strong ability considering the Target Priority rules and lack of splitfire in 4th. What exactly it's supposed to do here, I'm not sure yet.
Same thing: Concentrate more desirable firepower on a single body. The two situations that make that useful are having more ablative bodies to block for it (in multi-model units), or only having to take one model for twice the fire power (in Knights, where you are reasonably likely to take a Despoiler and a shedload of wardogs).
Except, as established, the same amount of firepower on the same amount of bodies costs more depending on how those guns are allocated. Knight AA + Knight BB costs more points than Knight AB + Knight AB, despite identical firing capacity. Specialization is worth something, but on such high point models versatility is often worth as much or more.
The efficiency tax is meant to cover everything from the simple ability to concentrate firepower (two knights cannot be in the same place), to taking less bodies for the weapons, and maximizing usage of stratagems and upgrades. Only time will tell if 20 points is enough, too much, or too little.
Two Knights can't be at the same place at once? How small and hard you think Knights are to deploy?
The existence of LOS blocking terrain, not to mention Obscuring Terrain, means that it there are a non-trivial number of instances where Knight A and Knight B cannot fire at target X. If Knight A has 2 of the best weapon for shooting at X, that is a concentration of firepower you don't get when both A & B have 1 of that weapon.
I could go over all sorts of theoretical reasons why 2 of a weapon on a single model is better than that weapon once on two different models. The only real proof I need is the fact that Chaos Knights players rapidly moved to having 2 of the same weapon rather than two different weapons on their Knights. The Proof is in the Pudding, sir.
H.B.M.C. wrote: So you think the second Lascannon in a Devastator Squad should cost more than the first?
GW thinks a good Devastator squad is one with 1 each of a Heavy Bolter, ML, Lascannon, and Plasma Cannon.
Or more aptly, GW thinks a Crisis Suit Squad in which each model has 3 different guns is worse than a Crisis Suit Squad in which each model has 3 of the same gun, and thus the worse squad should cost less than the better one.
I think the biggest reason to be double stacking on a Despoiler, would be not wanting to take a Second despoiler if you only care about the ranged weapon and only that one in particular.
Gadzilla666 wrote: They used to do something similar with Havocs and Devastators back in 3rd/4th. They paid extra for their heavy/ special weapons compared to other units that couldn't take them in the same concentration, like basic CSM, Tacs, and Chosen. It's basically a "specialization tax".
And it made no sense back then either. Make the grunt worth taking to begin with and you'll not have that issue.
Yes, it did, and it had nothing to do with the "grunts". It was a tax on concentrating firepower across less bodies, and in a single unit, which was a strong ability considering the Target Priority rules and lack of splitfire in 4th. What exactly it's supposed to do here, I'm not sure yet.
Same thing: Concentrate more desirable firepower on a single body. The two situations that make that useful are having more ablative bodies to block for it (in multi-model units), or only having to take one model for twice the fire power (in Knights, where you are reasonably likely to take a Despoiler and a shedload of wardogs).
Except, as established, the same amount of firepower on the same amount of bodies costs more depending on how those guns are allocated. Knight AA + Knight BB costs more points than Knight AB + Knight AB, despite identical firing capacity. Specialization is worth something, but on such high point models versatility is often worth as much or more.
The efficiency tax is meant to cover everything from the simple ability to concentrate firepower (two knights cannot be in the same place), to taking less bodies for the weapons, and maximizing usage of stratagems and upgrades. Only time will tell if 20 points is enough, too much, or too little.
Two Knights can't be at the same place at once? How small and hard you think Knights are to deploy?
The existence of LOS blocking terrain, not to mention Obscuring Terrain, means that it there are a non-trivial number of instances where Knight A and Knight B cannot fire at target X. If Knight A has 2 of the best weapon for shooting at X, that is a concentration of firepower you don't get when both A & B have 1 of that weapon.
I could go over all sorts of theoretical reasons why 2 of a weapon on a single model is better than that weapon once on two different models. The only real proof I need is the fact that Chaos Knights players rapidly moved to having 2 of the same weapon rather than two different weapons on their Knights. The Proof is in the Pudding, sir.
They moved to having 2 of the same weapon because the internal balance between weapons is pants making it very evident there is a "best" gun in a lot of circumstances. Even if that were the case here, a 20pt tax on two of the "best" gun isn't going to be relevant in relation to the tax on the "bad" guns. It's just a nonsensical choice. The only reasonable example given was if there's a strat that affects one weapon type as mentioned elsewhere in here, but that's still a poor design choice and again not fair to the other weapons.
Voss wrote: Communication seems fine, its just being rationalized in a way that doesn't really make sense (concentration of fire just doesn't matter on a handful of big expensive models coupled with the way shooting works in 9th)
Well no, the point is that there is no concentration of firepower at all. It very much matters, but it is also wholly absent in this instance.
Though to be honest, I don't think GW did this for game reasons. I think they did this for their weird 'the army is supposed to look like _this_ ' reason. Like the restrictions on cultists/tzaangors per marine unit or the overpriced grots. In this case, knights are 'supposed' to have gun and CCW or specific, different guns.
Yeah, I also suspect this was a major factor. Unfortunate that taking customization away from players is seen as such a priority by GW.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manfred von Drakken wrote: Why are you guys all acting like they don't already do this? Even currently, a single Avenger gatling cannon costs 90 points, while a pair costs 200 - a 20-point premium for doubling up.
A repeat of the mistake warrants a repeat of the criticism.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/04/26 07:23:11
Costs for tyrant are bigger than expected, and warglavies are more expensive. They want to cut over the warglavie spam list full rush
Where? Their entry on their own app just lists weapon points with no mention of a dual gun tax.
Edit: after googling, at the onset of 9th, GW just didn't update their app. Would be fun to see what happens if you attended something with a list from their app.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/04/26 07:55:56
There's also the optimal firing range argument. For the sake of an example, imagine one gun fires at full strength at 72" but another has a max range of 24" with bonus damage in half range.
With the AB/AB loadout, both Knights need to get within 12" to fire at full capacity. With the AA/BB loadout, only one needs to get up close and personal, the other can hold back.
So looking purely from a strategic point of view and not looking at flavour points, the arguments for costing paired weapons more are:
- Strat/buff efficiencies to only use these on the 'optimal' target;
- The improved potential for an allied Knight shoring up gaps in another list;
- The possibility of spamming a single weapon across the army; and
- Firing range / sightline optimisation.
On the other hand, there is a drawback to doubling - it makes it easier for the enemy to focus fire and kill the big problem Knight.
From a purely game balance perspective, is it better to concentrate weapon choices? I'd say generally, yes. Is it worth 20 points? I don't know, but it certainly feels like it might be.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/04/26 12:27:12
Super bad idea to mix weapons of different profile. Your positioning in the board will be so bad and the deployment and the movement eill be super suboptimal.
bmsattler wrote: I'm pretty sure that invalidating people's expensive model conversions wouldn't go over well.
They did it to my Skitarii squads' loadouts, so I have very little sympathy. They did it to my Onager Squadrons, so I have very little sympathy. Y'all can just join me in being salty about it.
Also, lol @ "expensive model conversions". Because having two of the same gun is somehow "expensive model conversions"?
It's just bloody bizarre that they pretend that it is somehow a Chaos-y thing for someone to have put two of the same gun on a Knight suit.
Taking cutting off your nose to spite your face to a whole new level.
The biggest indicator someone is a loser is them complaining about 3d printers or piracy.
I am actually surprised they didnt just limit the weapon options to what is in the box (like they did to many other units in the 9th edition codexes) and eliminate the option for doubling up the weapons. I imagine the majority (though certainly not all) of players have already magnetized these weapons.
Im 99% certain the only reason they allowed it in the first place was just to make Chaos Knights slightly different than Imperial Knights. With the new kits they have released since then, the armies are getting more differentiated regardless.
20 points is a small price to pay to have both weapons on the same chassis, as compared to 2 different bodies. You benefit from keeping the same range profile. Its nothing new, its the same cost currently.
bmsattler wrote: I'm pretty sure that invalidating people's expensive model conversions wouldn't go over well.
They did it to my Skitarii squads' loadouts, so I have very little sympathy. They did it to my Onager Squadrons, so I have very little sympathy. Y'all can just join me in being salty about it.
Also, lol @ "expensive model conversions". Because having two of the same gun is somehow "expensive model conversions"?
It's just bloody bizarre that they pretend that it is somehow a Chaos-y thing for someone to have put two of the same gun on a Knight suit.
Taking cutting off your nose to spite your face to a whole new level.
Oh oh oh, ask him to ramble about the Skitarii loadouts became what they are because people were loading up on Plasma Calivers on their Rangers! That's a good one.
It's sad that people missed the opportunity to complain when that happened. I guess they got burnt out on how it was a ploy to get people to buy more knights when they were the same cost.
It's sad that people missed the opportunity to complain when that happened. I guess they got burnt out on how it was a ploy to get people to buy more knights when they were the same cost.
Which is also true. I didn't research a single tidbit on Chaos Knights since it was just a ploy to sell another book
bmsattler wrote: I'm pretty sure that invalidating people's expensive model conversions wouldn't go over well.
They did it to my Skitarii squads' loadouts, so I have very little sympathy. They did it to my Onager Squadrons, so I have very little sympathy. Y'all can just join me in being salty about it.
Also, lol @ "expensive model conversions". Because having two of the same gun is somehow "expensive model conversions"?
It's just bloody bizarre that they pretend that it is somehow a Chaos-y thing for someone to have put two of the same gun on a Knight suit.
Taking cutting off your nose to spite your face to a whole new level.
Oh oh oh, ask him to ramble about the Skitarii loadouts became what they are because people were loading up on Plasma Calivers on their Rangers! That's a good one.
I mean I agree it's gak what happened to Skitarii (I hate this trend) - but actively being smug because it's happening to other factions? What is actually accomplished here?
The wargaming community is filled with bitter, spiteful people eager to try and find anything to declare a 'win' - including things that hurt themselves.
I will say now I do not care if the points change is bad. Or well, I care, it's a bit annoying - but I would rather an option be bad rather than invalid.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/04/26 16:20:53
The biggest indicator someone is a loser is them complaining about 3d printers or piracy.
I mean I agree it's gak what happened to Skitarii (I hate this trend) - but actively being smug because it's happening to other factions? What is actually accomplished here?
Welcome to part of the reason Kan used to be called WrongBadFun.
You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was
-1 Damage to Armigers from a command-phase buff on top of options like +1 BS or +1 toughness. They are pushing combined arms -hard- and I can't say I disapprove!
Each class of big Knight also grants a different buff, which can open the list-building phase to a lot more options than spamming Magaeras'. This reminds me of the Tyranids and their unit-based upgrades. I think its an awesome idea. I'm really excited with this reveal!
Edit: Also, the first line is "The new Codex Imperial Knights will be available for preorder very soon." I was expecting it to be a full month out, but based on the quantity of Warcom articles on Knights it may be closer to early May than late May/early June. I understand 'very soon' is subjective and I could be wrong.
Edit 2: They specify that the Preceptor has its own knightly teaching, so it may not stack with the +1 BS that a Crusader can grant.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/04/26 17:43:52
-1 Damage to Armigers from a command-phase buff on top of options like +1 BS or +1 toughness. They are pushing combined arms -hard- and I can't say I disapprove!
Each class of big Knight also grants a different buff, which can open the list-building phase to a lot more options than spamming Magaeras'. This reminds me of the Tyranids and their unit-based upgrades. I think its an awesome idea. I'm really excited with this reveal!
Edit: Also, the first line is "The new Codex Imperial Knights will be available for preorder very soon." I was expecting it to be a full month out, but based on the quantity of Warcom articles on Knights it may be closer to early May than late May/early June. I understand 'very soon' is subjective and I could be wrong.
-1 Damage to Armigers from a command-phase buff on top of options like +1 BS or +1 toughness. They are pushing combined arms -hard- and I can't say I disapprove!
I don't know how to feel about it, but I do not feel that it is pushing "combined arms", it's just pushing Knights+Armigers when taken as a pure Knight army.
I'd have agreed that they're pushing a combined arms approach if they made it so IK got to take Armigers as effectively a piece of "wargear" for the Questoris or Dominus.
Each class of big Knight also grants a different buff, which can open the list-building phase to a lot more options than spamming Magaeras'. This reminds me of the Tyranids and their unit-based upgrades. I think its an awesome idea. I'm really excited with this reveal!
Like I said, I'd be more excited if they actually made it so these upgrades wouldn't be effectively useless outside of a pure Knight setup. The Knight Preceptor already was a hard piece to justify for gaming unless running pure Knights. It really wouldn't have been a hard ask for even just that one to have been able to take Armigers as part of an aux detachment or something alongside of them.
-1 Damage to Armigers from a command-phase buff on top of options like +1 BS or +1 toughness. They are pushing combined arms -hard- and I can't say I disapprove!
I do. I kept expecting the article to stop, but instead there was yet another layer of bloat. Then another. And another.
That the ended on 'the Gatekeeper' seemed really fitting.
4000+
6000+ Order. Unity. Obedience.
